[HN Gopher] AMD Ryzen 7000 Burning Out: Impacts all 7000 processors
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Ryzen 7000 Burning Out: Impacts all 7000 processors
Author : nitinreddy88
Score : 92 points
Date : 2023-04-25 06:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| xxpor wrote:
| >We are aware of a limited number of reports online claiming that
| excess voltage _while overclocking_ may have damaged the
| motherboard socket and pin pads.
|
| Well, if the overclocking part is true, shrug. Not that it's
| great, but it's also not completely unexpected for bad things to
| happen when you OC.
| vondur wrote:
| I believe we've seen issues like this before from motherboard
| manufacturers, who are pushing more voltage to the CPU to get
| more performance out them. Recently is was on the Intel side of
| things.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| "the pre-programmed voltages used to support EXPO memory
| overclocking profiles"
|
| Bad things shouldn't be expected when using pre-programmed
| voltages.
|
| And chips shorting out beyond thermal limits shouldn't be
| expected ever.
| pizza234 wrote:
| This specific case (EXPO) is a grey area.
|
| I personally don't like overclocking, yet I've always enabled
| EXPO, for many reasons.
|
| First, because the producers of my RAM modules advertise it
| very clearly as feature; AMD advertises it quite loudly
| (https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/expo) as well. I think
| (not 100% sure) that it's even often set in RAM benchmarks .
|
| Modern systems have very aggressive frequencies/dynamic
| frequency scaling, which blurs the limit of what constitutes
| overclocking. Intel sells unlocked models of CPUs that are
| supposedly can be "overclocked" (https://www.intel.co.uk/conten
| t/www/uk/en/gaming/overclockin...).
|
| Many RAM producers sell modules based on their tolerance, so
| the fact that they're pushed to the limit - within the spec -
| is part of the sale.
|
| Having said that, I definitely draw the line to using voltages
| (or anything else) that are outside the specification, and I
| consider crossing it overclocking.
|
| Ultimately however, EXPO is a specification, so I don't
| consider it overclocking.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| On AM4 many boards set too high IOD voltages when enabling
| XMP. Afaik no detrimental impact except about 10 W
| superfluous power draw.
|
| It doesn't seem particularly far-fetched that EXPO might
| suffer from the same issue except it accidentally sets
| batshit voltages instead of just too high. Afaik the SoC and
| IMC supplies are unsophisticated, there is no DVS going on,
| just BIOS setting a particular voltage in the VRM.
| vel0city wrote:
| I agree. If the RAM module is on the QVL, the RAM module has
| an EXPO profile, the EXPO profile should be considered as in
| spec IMO.
| trey-jones wrote:
| Indeed. Overclocking in 2023 is different than it was 20 years
| ago. You probably weren't overclocking back then without some
| inkling of the risks/dangers of eg. increasing the voltage to
| your CPU. And because you knew the risks you were probably
| stepping up very, very slowly and stress testing at each
| increment. Now you can kinda just grunt "me want faster
| computer" and push a button and it works. Unless it goes
| horribly wrong and catches your CPU on fire.
|
| Chipmakers meanwhile can have their marketing cake by selling
| chips with certain properties, but pushing software that makes
| them "better than advertised" which seems like a great value.
| And then eat the legal cake by avoiding liability when chips
| fail because "running this hardware outside of the default
| specs is not supported."
| ilyt wrote:
| > Well, if the overclocking part is true, shrug. Not that it's
| great, but it's also not completely unexpected for bad things
| to happen when you OC.
|
| IIRC the core issue is that some motherboards loaded EXPO
| overclocking profile (basically, overclocking parameters for
| memory that are written on memory stick for "guranteed",
| "tested" OC performance) and caused overvoltage of CPU.
|
| I don't remember if they found whether that's mobo reading
| profile wrong and burning up CPU or just some RAM sticks coming
| with too optimistic profile and mobo doing "well, I trust you,
| here are extra volts".
|
| The wild part is that it is AMD tech (Untel has similiar
| equivalent in XMP), yet it also voids warranty as any other
| overclock
| wmf wrote:
| AMD recommends that customers use EXPO then they claim it's
| warranty-voiding unsafe overclocking.
| derefr wrote:
| And doctors recommend safe-injection sites, while also
| claiming that shooting heroin is unsafe. Shocking!
|
| It's called "harm reduction" -- i.e. "if you're going to do
| stupid thing X anyway, you may as well use our weak
| guardrails for it, to hopefully minimize the damage you're
| causing compared to doing it through some random third-party
| solution."
| formerly_proven wrote:
| AMD has generally presented benchmarks with market-typical
| XMP/A-XMP/EXPO memory; their CPUs benefit more than the
| competition from that. Now some people have the urge to
| turn around and go "well why you'd do that, what are you,
| stupid?" for some reason.
| Sakos wrote:
| Oh please. They advertise their performance based on using
| things like EXPO. It's insanely anti-consumer for them to
| turn around and say "if you want to reach the performance
| we sold you this CPU on, you need to turn in this feature
| that voids your warranty and could potentially blow up your
| CPU". I don't understand why you're defending them here.
| protastus wrote:
| In the old days that would be true but nowadays OC is so
| mainstream that temperature sensors are expected to keep the
| SoC within safe limits, shutting down if needed but preventing
| damage.
|
| Something escaped design models and test scenarios for this to
| happen with end users.
| xxpor wrote:
| This doesn't sound like a thermal issue with the chip itself
| though, more in the physical socket.
| ilyt wrote:
| In the article it said that apparently in some cases excess
| voltage damaged the temperature sensor which caused chip to
| not register overheating and just ask VRM for more power
| arprocter wrote:
| This is the latest -
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/preventing-ryzen-burnout-m...
| JimBo72 wrote:
| The press releases from the motherboard vendors are 100% proof
| that these failures are real and a problem. They all cite new
| firmware that limits SoC voltage, thus showing the analysis in
| the article is correct.
| djmips wrote:
| I'm not saying this is FUD but I'm getting vibes from the old
| days.
| frou_dh wrote:
| Old days like 1st-gen Ryzen in 2017? The launch chips were
| defective. I confirmed it with my own and had to get a new one.
|
| > AMD has not provided an official public explanation of the
| fundamental problem, but [...] it appears to affect Ryzen CPUs
| manufactured prior to week 25.
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/new-ryzen-fixed
| ilyt wrote:
| This looks like "we didn't told anyone about limits they
| should not cross" or maybe had too optimistic ones in NDA'd
| docs they passed to the mobo vendors.
|
| Or mobo vendors dropped the balls and thought those were
| "recommended" and not "absolute max"
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| > According to our sources and seconded by an ASUS statement to
| Der8auer, the problem stems from SoC voltages being altered to
| unsafe higher levels. This can be imposed from either the pre-
| programmed voltages used to support EXPO memory overclocking
| profiles or when a user manually adjusts the SoC voltages (a
| common practice to eke out a bit more memory overclocking
| headroom).
|
| Does that mean, as long as I don't overclock, my Ryzen7 CPU will
| most likely be a-ok?
| kaelinl wrote:
| My reading of the statement (and understanding of other
| reporting on this subject) is that EXPO alone _can_ trigger
| this issue. Calling EXPO overclocking feels somewhat
| disingenuous to me.
|
| EXPO is akin to Intel's XMP. The RAM stick reports timings and
| other settings that it can handle and then the motherboard/user
| selects one to use. The profiles are needed because the
| official JEDEC standard for DDR doesn't provide a mechanism for
| running up to the frequencies that modern RAM uses; e.g. if you
| buy a DDR5 6000MHz kit, it'll only run at 4800MHz or
| thereabouts until you enable EXPO/XMP. RAM is really never
| expected to be run at the base frequency (without EXPO/XMP). If
| you buy a prebuilt, it'll have EXPO/XMP enabled, and if you
| build yourself you always should be enabling it. If you have a
| RAM kit that's somewhat recent and don't have it enabled,
| you've likely wasted money on the RAM.
|
| Intel has attempted to claim that XMP was overclocking and
| violated their warranty but my understanding is that they
| quickly backed off.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > My reading of the statement (and understanding of other
| reporting on this subject) is that EXPO alone can trigger
| this issue. Calling EXPO overclocking feels somewhat
| disingenuous to me.
|
| Totally. With DDR5-6000, it's even nastier: AMD repeatedly
| said that DDR5-6000 was the "sweet spot". I never overclocked
| any computer of mine but I did buy DDR5-6000 for my 7700X
| _because_ AMD said it was the sweet spot. And I turned EXPO
| on so that it 'd run at 6000, not 4800.
|
| And now, after saying 6000 was the "sweet spot", they try to
| word things as if EXPO was somehow overclocking!?
| Ciantic wrote:
| I'm in same boat. I payed a premium for DDR5-6000 64GB for
| my 7950X, because AMD said it's the sweet spot... I didn't
| ever consider this "overclocking", I haven't ever been
| interested on overclocking, I just want stable machine.
|
| Now I'm considering disabling EXPO, but I don't think it
| would work as 6000 anymore after that. I have used this
| machine for 4 months now, so I'd say it's pretty safe, but
| who knows, I haven't taxed the CPU with gaming yet.
| ilyt wrote:
| https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/expo
|
| Scroll down, open footnotes:
|
| > Overclocking and/or undervolting AMD processors and
| memory, including without limitation, altering clock
| frequencies / multipliers or memory timing / voltage, to
| operate outside of AMD's published specifications will
| void any applicable AMD product warranty, even when
| enabled via AMD hardware and/or software. This may also
| void warranties offered by the system manufacturer or
| retailer. Users assume all risks and liabilities that may
| arise out of overclocking and/or undervolting AMD
| processors, including, without limitation, failure of or
| damage to hardware, reduced system performance and/or
| data loss, corruption or vulnerability.
|
| On their own page they consider it warranty-voiding
| feature that they ADVERTISE and PROMOTE
|
| > Now I'm considering disabling EXPO, but I don't think
| it would work as 6000 anymore after that. I have used
| this machine for 4 months now, so I'd say it's pretty
| safe, but who knows, I haven't taxed the CPU with gaming
| yet.
|
| I'd drop it, wait till it all blow over, upgrade the
| BIOS, and re-enable it. It does seem like just a firmware
| bug or maybe some OC profile on memory being overly
| optimistic with voltage.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| This kind of corporate behavior is common. Subaru for a
| while offered free SCCA memberships with purchase of a
| WRX so you could autocross it, then you do an autocross
| and they try to get out of any warranty work because you
| autocrossed it.
|
| Certainly tire/brake pad wear shouldn't be covered but
| they were more ridiculous about it than that.
|
| Be sure you know what autocross is before you type up a
| big lecture about wear and tear from racing. Also I
| already know.
| ilyt wrote:
| >Totally. With DDR5-6000, it's even nastier: AMD repeatedly
| said that DDR5-6000 was the "sweet spot".
|
| And the specs on their own page say DDR5-5200 is the max
| memory speed, WTF
| paulmd wrote:
| If you enable Expo/XMP then AMD considers that an overclock
| (GD-106/GD-112).
|
| https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/gamingdetails
|
| That's the root of the problem seemingly - going past the
| official spec (5200 MT/s for 2 sticks, 3600 MT/s for 4 sticks)
| requires additional voltage to the memory controller and it's
| not uncommon for motherboards to automatically punch up the
| voltages when you turn on XMP or Expo. You requested the board
| to overclock after all, they're just helping you get it stable
| without tinkering! It's completely legal from the mobo vendor's
| perspective to enable more voltage in "auto-OC" scenarios and
| they are in fact incentivized to do so by the possibility of
| returns and negative reviews/bad word of mouth. Customers will
| remember when "it didn't work on Asus but I just enabled XMP on
| MSI and it worked fine", even if that's because MSI is punching
| up voltages. They will see that MSI scores 3% better in
| whatever benchmark. And AMD themselves in fact advertises
| benchmarks with Expo enabled, despite the fact that it
| officially voids the warranty. AMD and Intel (both) have gotten
| away with this for a long time, having their cake on heavily
| implying/suggesting it be enabled but technically voiding the
| warranty if you do (although it's quite unenforced unless you
| openly tell a warranty agent that you did it).
|
| I had a 9900K fail due to simply enabling XMP too, and I've
| seen many reports of early Zen1/Zen+/Zen2 with what seems
| likely to be IMC failures (they are getting to be "of the age"
| - 3-5 years with increased VSOC and the memory controllers are
| just clapped out). DDR4 controllers seem more delicate in
| general compared to DDR3, and DDR5 requires still higher
| voltages. It's almost shocking to hear buildzoid recommend 1.3v
| VSOC as a "safe" daily driver. AM4 voltages were more like
| 0.8-1.1v.
|
| It also doesn't help that the early AM5 IO die seems to be
| terrible. AMD has always been worse than Intel but a lot of AM5
| chips won't even post with 4 sticks even at the pedestrian
| official spec of 3600 MT/s. Zen5 is supposed to feature an
| improved IO die and I wonder if the VSOC will be lower there.
| metadat wrote:
| "Probably", but not guaranteed. This isn't a normal thing to
| have happen, even with overclocked chips. The temperature
| sensors used for thermal protection aren't usually the first
| thing to break.
| ilyt wrote:
| It might not be temperature sensor itself but circuitry
| measuring it. Yeah sensor is "just a diode" but that needs
| amplifier and ADC to get to the rest of the system
| caycep wrote:
| What I'm not sure of is DDR5 - it had seemed DDR5 offered more
| flexibility in voltage/speeds, i.e. the "stock" ddr5 speeds at
| 1.2V seemed conservative compared to 1.35 or 1.5V for DDR3 or
| DDR4. But if going about 1.2V or whatever voltage DDR5-6000
| EXPO profiles are setting, also necessitates increasing SOC/CPU
| voltage...maybe it's better to hang back and just stick w/
| DDR5-5200 or 5400 or something like that.
| a3w wrote:
| Derachtauer is a strange name. Is that guy called Kevin
| Achtauer,or what?
| zen_1 wrote:
| It's a stand in for "Der Bauer", and I think the guy's name
| is Roman
| kimixa wrote:
| I think this is a bit of a stretch from tomshardware, as if you
| actually read the statement https://i.imgur.com/pM358j6.jpg it
| doesn't actually say what the problem is, or even that there is
| a problem. Just they released a new BIOS that has more
| limitations.
|
| And the other "evidence" of a photo of a damaged pin pad on a
| ryzen processor shows the damaged pins aren't related to the
| SoC rail mentioned in the article.
| JimBo72 wrote:
| You need to read the statements from motherboard ODMs that
| explicitly state they are limiting the SoC voltage.
|
| You also obviously did not read the article. The high SoC
| voltage fries the thermal sensors that enable overheat
| protection. That creates a cascading failure that allows the
| chip to draw too much vCore, then melt itself. Of which there
| have been numerous pictures and reports.
| kimixa wrote:
| The only thing I can see in the article that supports that
| is:
|
| "Our sources also added further details about the nature of
| the chip failures -- in some cases, excessive SoC voltages
| destroy the chips' thermal sensors and thermal protection
| mechanisms, completely disabling its only means of
| detecting and protecting itself from overheating"
|
| And "Our Sources" aren't motherboard vendor statements,
| none of the statements from motherboard vendors or AMD
| themselves support this theory, so we're relying on Tom's
| unnamed "sources" rather than any public evidence or
| statement.
|
| This is exactly what I dislike - the slow removal of the
| source and quality of evidence and information. It's Toms
| being bad too, as their statement
|
| "seconded by an ASUS statement to Der8auer, the problem
| stems from SoC voltages"
|
| does _not_ seem a good representation of the actual
| statement - the image of which I linked.
| zamalek wrote:
| In general, you _should_ be running the EXPO profile: this
| "upclocks" your RAM. I use the term "upclock" instead of
| overclock because you aren't pushing your RAM past its
| manufacturer's limit, you are pushing it _to_ that limit. The
| JEDEC profile (the opposite of EXPO) is extremely conservative
| and can significantly affect performance.
|
| This effect is compounded with Ryzen because of Infinity
| Fabric, which is the interconnect between the chiplets in the
| CPU. IF is clocked to the same speed as your RAM - so at the
| 6000MT/s "sweet spot" the article mentions your IF and RAM bus
| are running at 3000MHz. Matching IF to RAM bus is so important
| that increasing the RAM bus clock above the IF clock will
| decrease performance (unless the RAM bus clock is a multiple of
| the IF clock).
|
| I haven't done the comparison on my 7950x, but on my 3950x
| running the IF at 1800MHz (RAM at 3600MT/s) resulted in a
| 10%-30% uplift in performance (depending on the workload).
|
| So with Ryzen, if should consider purchasing RAM that is
| matched to the IF clock. For Ryzen 7 that is 6000MT/s. If you
| purchased RAM above that, you should definitely decrease the
| clock to match IF (you can tighten RAM timing to take advantage
| of the more expensive chips that you purchased, if you have the
| patience to).
|
| What am I doing? I am going to disable EXPO, but I will
| definitely be re-enabling once this has been resolved.
|
| Aside: What is MT/s vs MHz? DDR stands for "double data rate",
| meaning the MHz that everyone uses to describe the speed of RAM
| is a misnomer. "6000MHz" RAM actually runs at 3000MHz (but does
| two transfers per clock cycle). So: Mega-Transfers per Second.
| ilyt wrote:
| >In general, you should be running the EXPO profile: this
| "upclocks" your RAM. I use the term "upclock" instead of
| overclock because you aren't pushing your RAM past its
| manufacturer's limit, you are pushing it to that limit. The
| JEDEC profile (the opposite of EXPO) is extremely
| conservative and can significantly affect performance.
|
| Any source I could find says that EXPO does void warranty, as
| it is overclocking. https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/expo
| (in footnotes section at the end of page)
|
| It might move RAM to it's manufacturer spec as you said but
| it does it by _overclocking CPU_
|
| > So with Ryzen, if should consider purchasing RAM that is
| matched to the IF clock. For Ryzen 7 that is 6000MT/s. If you
| purchased RAM above that, you should definitely decrease the
| clock to match IF (you can tighten RAM timing to take
| advantage of the more expensive chips that you purchased, if
| you have the patience to).
|
| Do you know any good benchmark (preferably Linux one) that
| would show those differences? I will be getting 7800X3D in
| few days so I want to test it for a bit.
|
| > What am I doing? I am going to disable EXPO, but I will
| definitely be re-enabling once this has been resolved.
|
| The core of the issue seems to be "just" overvolting so I'm
| guessing any manual overclock would still be fine. I have no
| need for it now (just puny 1070 to pair it with for now), but
| yeah, wait for new BIOS firmware seems to be best option.
|
| > Aside: What is MT/s vs MHz? DDR stands for "double data
| rate", meaning the MHz that everyone uses to describe the
| speed of RAM is a misnomer. "6000MHz" RAM actually runs at
| 3000MHz (but does two transfers per clock cycle). So: Mega-
| Transfers per Second.
|
| Not exactly. The specified speed is _only_ speed of the bus
| between memory and CPU, not the speed of memory chip itself.
| DDR4 3200 and DDR5 6400 have exact same internal speed
| (400MHz) and this is why there isn 't much of latency
| improvement between generations (DDR5 does have some other
| tricks for latency).
|
| Also the 6400MHz is actual speed _data_ is put on the bus,
| even if clock is half of that.
|
| It's pretty much entirely so the RAM chips don't have some
| insane number of pins but something manageable.
| zamalek wrote:
| > Benchmark
|
| I was still using Windows when I did everything with my
| 3950x. I used AIDA64 for the memory, specifically paying
| attention to latency (which is the strongest signal you
| will see for IF 1:1). Other than that it was a few tests
| that matched my anticipated workload: pi for stability,
| 3DMark for games (another decent signal), compilation speed
| for dev.
|
| On Linux+7950x I just did some subjective tests (I have
| less time these days) with rust-analyzer responsiveness and
| there definitely was an improvement, but I can't quantify
| how much.
|
| I might be less of an issue for a 7800 because, as far as I
| remember, it doesn't use chiplets.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I guess that depends on the nature of the failure and the
| fragility of the part.
|
| If you're staying inside the recommended voltage its likely the
| product will have a long life. For example look at the life
| curve of capacitors (and I'm not talking the diseased ones we
| had to deal with in the 2000s). The 'hotter' we run them the
| shorter their lifespan is. Now what can be difficult to figure
| out via testing is to figure out the MTBF when you have a hard
| cutoff point for failure that's not very much higher than
| standard operating specs. We could be failing at 100 hours at
| 1.4v, and 10,000 hours at 1.3v. Or it could last 100,000 hours
| at 1.3v.
| teirce wrote:
| Vendors are putting out updated BIOS that limit voltage going
| to the chips. Based on internet hearsay, even some of the non-
| OC chips were getting wrecked by stock BIOS overvolting enough.
| The real concern is with the X3D chips which are particularly
| sensitive to voltage and not particularly meant to be
| overclocked.
|
| I think you're fine as long as you flash an updated BIOS put
| out by your MB manufacturer.
| kimixa wrote:
| Ugh, this has exploded on reddit and through a game of telephone
| seems to have turned a couple of anecdotes, a single photo of a
| damaged chip, speculation from users and media and a statement
| saying "We're aware of the reports and are investigating" into a
| massive issue that is "Confirmed" to affect all processors and
| spouting advice and recommendations based on it.
|
| It's a great example of a hype train and something like
| citogenesis, each loop through comments and media seems to turn
| more speculation into fact.
| epolanski wrote:
| Got a 7700x, I barely hear the fan unless there's the deadly
| TS+, Eslint, combination on a huge monorepo.
|
| Was heavily interested in undervolting, but I have never been
| pressed.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| We've got the same CPU (a nice little workhorse for a very
| gentle price I'd say)! I assembled the PC myself (hadn't done
| that in like 15 years for I had a shop do it for me but
| decided that this time, to not get too rusty, I'd do it
| myself) and put a Noctua NH-U12S cooler/fan on it, in a "Be
| Quiet!" tower (with a Be Quiet! PSU). So I like quiet fans.
|
| Anyway I'm running Linux and put on all (but one) workspaces
| (or "virtual desktops"), the CPU governor in "powersave"
| mode, where apparently the CPU doesn't got above 3 Ghz and
| doesn't go above 45 C. Then on my "dev" workspace, the one
| where I need the performances, I set the CPU governor to
| "ondemand" and a single core can boost up to 5.51 Ghz (as
| reported by Linux) or all cores at once up to 4.9 to 5.1 Ghz
| with the temp reaching 95 C (which I think is how these 7000
| series are meant to operate: they'll boost but then shall
| lower a clock a bit to not go above 95 C).
|
| I configured my WM to automatically change the CPU governor
| depending on which workspace I'm on.
|
| I'll never here the CPU cooler's fan when in "powersave" /
| "max 3.0 Ghz / max 45 C" mode. When the governor is in
| "ondemand" mode, I'll hear the fan indeed once I start
| compiling stuff.
|
| I may, sadly, remove the RAM EXPO setting (seen that I bough
| DDR5-6000) while waiting for an ASUS BIOS / firmware upgrade
| for my Prime B650-Plus mobo.
|
| It's not cool to run DDR5-6000 at 4800 but I'd rather not fry
| the CPU/mobo.
| vondur wrote:
| Wow, that's a pretty cool idea I've never considered.
| Switching CPU governor based on the virtual desktop.
| epolanski wrote:
| I have the same cooler! No expo issues on gigabyte ds3h.
|
| Why haven't you undervolted the cpu with all your interest
| for noise?
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > I have the same cooler! No expo issues on gigabyte
| ds3h.
|
| Ah I'm less lucky: ASUS Prime B650-Plus mobo and the link
| says that on the Gamer Nexus forum (?) it could be a
| problem with ASUS motherboards.
|
| > Why haven't you undervolted the cpu with all your
| interest for noise?
|
| Honestly I'm not too sure how to do that. I never bother
| overclocking/underclocking. I like everything stock. I
| _thought_ running DDR5-6000 from the QVL list in EXPO
| mode was also something really normal to do.
| epolanski wrote:
| > Honestly I'm not too sure how to do that.
|
| Quite simple, I always undervolt AMD hardware as they
| tend to consistently exxagerate on that, gpus too.
|
| https://youtu.be/1pizvaYiVbk
| hirvi74 wrote:
| I considering a build with 13600k, and I am seriously just
| considering going with DDR5-4800. It's a tad cheaper than
| the DDR-5600 I was initially going to go with. I honestly
| do not think I would be able to tell the difference in day-
| to-day usage between DDR5-4800, DDR5-5200, DDR5-5600, and
| perhaps higher than that.
|
| With that being said, I acknowledge that I am just making
| an assumption. Have you noticed any difference outside of
| benchmarks? I am not looking to go higher in speeds because
| I have seen videos (e.g. from Buildzoid) talking about how
| awful the 13th gen memory controller is, so I figured I am
| not really looking to gamble my time and money on max
| performance RAM.
| epolanski wrote:
| I have not measured the impact outside benchs and yes you
| are probably fine with 4800s, but I use my pc for work
| and I would avoid slower ram when as a dev all my IDEs
| and processes do nothing but R/W from memory.
| JimBo72 wrote:
| This is incorrect. Multiple instances (more than 6) have thus
| far been reported and pictured. All four major motherboard OEMs
| have now come forward with patches that are designed to limit
| the voltage. You can see their press releases in the link
| below.
|
| These companies aren't making public statements about changes
| to their firmware to prevent failures for no reason.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/preventing-ryzen-burnout-m...
| kimixa wrote:
| It would be so easy to link those 6 reports.
|
| One more report I can find is this:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/12yq4yb/megathread_for.
| ..
|
| But they said they didn't enable EXPO, which is directly
| counter to the current theory being pushed by Toms
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/12yq4yb/megathread_for.
| ..
| wnevets wrote:
| I'm going to wait till Gamers Nexus tells me what to think
| about this.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Yep this is gonna be blown out of proportion like the RTX 30XX
| series capacitor issues that in the end affected almost nobody.
|
| Or the people getting randomly banned for cheating in various
| games, that all turned out to be small numbers, and actual
| cheaters.
|
| People will swallow any FUD about anything tech-related they
| have a semblance of understanding about.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| IMO, there needs to be more public shaming by game moderators
| when someone claims to have been banned for no reason and it
| turns out they were banned for spamming racial slurs or
| cheating.
| mastax wrote:
| It's not "a single photo of a damaged chip" there are at least
| 4 different public examples that I've seen. Not that it changes
| the scale of the evidence much.
|
| The fact that the vendors are acting so quickly about this
| suggests to me that they have other non-public examples of the
| problem (from warranty returns, etc.) and the hullabaloo led
| them to compare notes and determine the root cause rather
| quickly. Or maybe they're just over-reacting to defuse the mob
| but I don't think that's super likely.
| kimixa wrote:
| I am only aware of 2 examples, the one that was posted on
| reddit and is now apparently being shipped to GamersNexus,
| and Der8auer, who didn't even notice pad discoloration (so
| may not have even been caused by an overcurrent event).
|
| I wouldn't bet their "fast" response is due to them
| internally already knowing, so much as the PR hit from
| getting to the top of the PC enthusiast forums on reddit.
| None of the statements so far even suggest they've reproduced
| anything wrong, leaving vague statements of investigating it
| or adding more limitations in case that was an issue.
|
| I remember a while ago something similar happened when
| someone read a lot into a comment into the open source AMD
| GPU driver as the "Shader Prefetch" feature of their GPUs was
| broken and disabled. AMD ended up having to issue a statement
| saying it's enabled and working where it benefits performance
| - and that shot to the top of those same forums and people
| "demanded" an explanation, and that was just an internal
| detail of hardware performance, not even a user-visible
| feature. To this day some commenters think the performance is
| somehow hobbled by this, so there may be more pressure to get
| faster responses.
|
| I personally work on GPU drivers, AMD GPU drivers, but not on
| windows. I actively avoid commenting on things I have
| personal knowledge of, so I don't accidently leak something,
| but also because I see so much /wrong/ stuff repeated on the
| internet. In fact, I would say the majority of the specifics
| that are "generally accepted" on those subreddits are wrong
| to the point of being misleading. And a couple of times I've
| tried to question things I knew were incorrect I was heavily
| downvoted and dogpiled, so I gave up.
|
| So while I have no direct knowledge of anything related to
| the CPU and it's power management, I'm trying to avoid Gell-
| Mann amnesia on "facts" repeated in those same subreddits.
|
| So my current position is there _may_ be an issue here, it
| _may_ even be related to the SoC voltage regulation currently
| being blamed, but the "evidence" so far could also be caused
| by a thousand other things.
| JimBo72 wrote:
| So your skepticism here and dismissal of public statements
| from the motherboard makers admitting fault has absolutely
| nothing to do with the fact that you are an AMD employee?
|
| Do you think that, maybe, being an AMD employee, just
| maybe, you might be a bit biased here?
| kimixa wrote:
| And I personally have an 8700k in my home machine.
|
| I work in a large company, I'm not really involved with
| anything or anyone working on CPUs. I have no internal
| knowledge of anything in this area.
|
| And I'm just pointing out how the statements of evidence
| presented here don't naturally lead to this conclusion as
| seem to be implied - not that this conclusion isn't
| correct, or some opinion about the quality of the
| hardware and software involved. I'm trying my best to not
| involve my opinion, and instead actually stick to the
| known facts. Which is my issue with this story as
| written.
|
| I'm not sure if you're reading the same statements, but
| the ones I've seen explicitly _don 't_ admit fault.
| JimBo72 wrote:
| The four motherboard makers that have issued public press
| releases about revised firmware that is designed
| specifically to limit the SoC voltage to prevent failures
| would disagree with you here. If that isn't a public
| admission of this being the source of the failure, what is?
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Four motherboard makers jumping on the FUD train isn't
| proof of anything.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| In summary you're saying it's caused by GPU drivers.
|
| /s
| markhahn wrote:
| overclocking is like a carnival geek saying he loves the taste of
| lightbulbs.
| loeg wrote:
| > Our sources also added further details about the nature of the
| chip failures -- in some cases, excessive SoC voltages destroy
| the chips' thermal sensors and thermal protection mechanisms,
| completely disabling its only means of detecting and protecting
| itself from overheating. As a result, the chip continues to
| operate without knowing its temperature or tripping the thermal
| protections.
|
| If true, that seems like a pretty major problem!
| shmerl wrote:
| _> ASUS has also issued a statement, clarifying that it will
| issue firmwares that limit SoC voltage to 1.3V_
|
| What about RAM that requires 1.4V?
| oblak wrote:
| Spending a month desperately trying to kill a CPU that is known
| to be extremely sensitive to over-volting finally nets a result.
| Congrats to the Intel shill Der8auer.
|
| I am glad there are armies of tinkerers but this guy knows damn
| well these CPUs should not be overclocked. He was trying to kill
| it
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Just a note: GamersNexus has been digging into this issue quite a
| bit, and supposedly has a video nearly ready with their initial
| results [1].
|
| I'd wait until there's more evidence about who's to blame and how
| large the problem is before putting much weight into the media
| reports.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/GamersNexus/status/1651308183745331202
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| GN seems to think it is Asus's fault, possibly due to bad
| firmware/BIOS
| [deleted]
| ilyt wrote:
| There were few reports from non-asus ones IIRC, but it's hard
| to tell whether that was same "the EXPO profile loaded from
| memory fried it" or someone just going "MoRe VoLtS BeTtEr"
| and frying it.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Almost always good to wait on GN. They tend to do a much more
| thorough and careful analysis of situations like these.
|
| Are they always the first to get the news? No. But they almost
| always get it _right_ which I appreciate a lot. IE: The 12-pin
| power debacle.
| wincy wrote:
| I like to wait for the inevitable five minute king Linus Tech
| Tips video where Linus calls the guy at Gamers Nexus "really
| smart" and just repeats the findings that are somewhere in
| the hour long GN video. Because I only sorta care a little
| about this stuff.
| JimBo72 wrote:
| Four motherboard makers have come forward and issued press
| releases about new firmware they are releasing that limits the
| SoC voltage, thus preventing this issue. What further evidence
| is needed?
| Szpadel wrote:
| The question is if they limit abnormal voltage, or just lock
| to "safe" ones. this might not be a solution, this could be
| just a workaround basically crippling oc
|
| AFAIK none of them said anything about what is happening nor
| what their fix is doing
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-26 23:01 UTC)