5900x, running hot

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
It was marked on the beta version that biosflashback was the only way to roll back the AGESA 1.2.0.0 version. AGESA 1.2.0.1 final is out for x570 so probably close for your board as well.
Ah wow, I feel tricked! I don't even look or read beta version descriptions on Asus's site.. I'd never install one. My UEFI/BIOS is not something I'm ever going to run a beta on so I missed that. I don't feel my issue is in AGESA but in some sort of configuration by Asus. They probably just ensure the X570/B550 boards are operating correctly and their technicians are just ensuring the 400 series are stable.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
I've stayed on the hunt and I realize I'm the only one here that cares about this issue but my quest may help someone else that's doing a search on this.

I did find another user with an MSI board that reported the same 125W limit on AGESA 1.2.0.0. Once he rolled back, it was back to 142W. I'm probably going to try another AFUDOS bios rollback this weekend, pretty sure I know what I did wrong last time. My other option is to wait and see on 1.2.0.1, but I have the feeling Asus will drag their feet on 400 series boards from here on out.

I understand Asus said you can't go back, but they probably meant through their tools.. they would never endorse using the AMI bios utilities. It's not my favorite thing to do because it's risky, and after you flash via commandline, you really should clear CMOS, then flash the BIOS again with the same version via official methods, then clear CMOS again (IMO). So it's kind of a process to ensure a clean outcome but I've done it before on this board.
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
I've stayed on the hunt and I realize I'm the only one here that cares about this issue but my quest may help someone else that's doing a search on this.

I did find another user with an MSI board that reported the same 125W limit on AGESA 1.2.0.0. Once he rolled back, it was back to 142W. I'm probably going to try another AFUDOS bios rollback this weekend, pretty sure I know what I did wrong last time. My other option is to wait and see on 1.2.0.1, but I have the feeling Asus will drag their feet on 400 series boards from here on out.

I understand Asus said you can't go back, but they probably meant through their tools.. they would never endorse using the AMI bios utilities. It's not my favorite thing to do because it's risky, and after you flash via commandline, you really should clear CMOS, then flash the BIOS again with the same version via official methods, then clear CMOS again (IMO). So it's kind of a process to ensure a clean outcome but I've done it before on this board.
Interesting that that someone with MSI had the same issue. It could very well be an AGESA 1.2.0.0 issue of it occurs on both MSI and ASUS as that makes it unlikely that is the manufacturer customization that cause the issues.

Never used beta bios, as there is a reason for them being beta, but saw the instructions on the page as I checked for the 1.2.0.0 final release. The special thing about bios flashback is that it doesn't require a "working" CPU and can be used with CPUs that are unsupported by the bios.

I do remember the old days when you had to use a floppy to flash bios, then CD, USB stick and finally being able to do it from within bios. Definitely don't miss having to create bootable floppies and running .exe files to update the bios.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
Interesting that that someone with MSI had the same issue. It could very well be an AGESA 1.2.0.0 issue of it occurs on both MSI and ASUS as that makes it unlikely that is the manufacturer customization that cause the issues.

Never used beta bios, as there is a reason for them being beta, but saw the instructions on the page as I checked for the 1.2.0.0 final release. The special thing about bios flashback is that it doesn't require a "working" CPU and can be used with CPUs that are unsupported by the bios.

I do remember the old days when you had to use a floppy to flash bios, then CD, USB stick and finally being able to do it from within bios. Definitely don't miss having to create bootable floppies and running .exe files to update the bios.
That's still the method if you don't have an equivalent of bios flashback or even if you do, and have to force any rollback. I remember the even older days when there were no BIOS updates. If you got any sort of patch, it came on a floppy disk in the mail. Which I did do a number of times, but mostly games.. I'm not even sure they were sending out motherboard BIOS updates. The complexity wasn't there back then, they were just engineered to be reliable from point of purchase. With no internet at all or BBS at most, and years later on, dial-up internet, there weren't nearly as many security concerns.
It was implied or understood upon learning of it affecting both MSI and Asus boards that it's an AGESA change at fault not vendor-specific. It would be wise for anyone affected by this to wait for the 1.2.0.1 release and see if it's resolved before doing a rollback with a DOS utility, but we'll see if I have the patience. I usually like to get myself into trouble but I'm not sure this one is worth the risk.

I did a little more digging on flashing the UEFI/BIOS.. for newer boards like mine with a 32MB ROM it would be best to use Flashrom and not the older AMI utilities that are mentioned in that Asus forum link. When I used that method it was years ago now, the ROM has to be at the brim now given that they removed some of the Zen1 APU support to support Zen3 on my board. On a board with the equivalent of Asus Bios Flashback, I'd say to not wait, and go for it.

Another find that's interesting and first bit of instability on my 5900X that I've found for the 3 months I've had it running. With this latest BIOS 4204 AGESA 1.2.0.0, the latest Prime95 crashes my system as soon as I start it up, without anything else including monitoring software running. I ran P95 constantly when I built this system to both stress test and vet it overall before I called the new build good. That was on the prior BIOS, 4007 / AGESA 1.0.8.0. Since going to 1.2.0.0 I have only started using CBR20 instead to compare against others rather than worrying about stress testing.

Still working on rolling back to it, but struggling with FlashROM and can't find a copy of the latest version for DOS. Looking like I'll have to build it from source if I want it. The version everyone else is (or was) using a couple years ago doesn't recognize my chip.

Update- I found and tried the latest FlashRom (1.2) with Ryzen support patched in, still didn't work. Found this reference where someone spoke with TheStilt and this is new. The write protection mentioned in the BIOS update notes is an AGESA thing and likely affecting all boards (unless someone figures out a way around it someday, might want to be sure to buy "flashback" boards going forward..)-
https://yrst4q3nftbtn5gkuhqfcj5s2i-...-x570-i-gaming.1236042/page-116#post-28134517
 
Last edited:

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,531
Many of the motherboard vendors actually push the chips harder than what one could have considered stock a decade ago. They will try to get a higher boost / all core than actually running at what we may perceive as 'stock'. You can manually tune the bios to better fit what a stock profile may look like to you, or decrease the amount of extra power that may be built in to ensuring stability under full load. In my experiences the 5xxx run pretty hot, much hotter than the 3xxx series I slotted it in to replace in an x570 with same core layout. I am particularly perturbed by the idle temps, which irritates me to no end. Why can't the chips idle under 35*c when there's literally nothing going on, under water. Grinds my gears.
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
Many of the motherboard vendors actually push the chips harder than what one could have considered stock a decade ago. They will try to get a higher boost / all core than actually running at what we may perceive as 'stock'. You can manually tune the bios to better fit what a stock profile may look like to you, or decrease the amount of extra power that may be built in to ensuring stability under full load. In my experiences the 5xxx run pretty hot, much hotter than the 3xxx series I slotted it in to replace in an x570 with same core layout. I am particularly perturbed by the idle temps, which irritates me to no end. Why can't the chips idle under 35*c when there's literally nothing going on, under water. Grinds my gears.
Sure you don't have a lot of processes going on? Mine pulled 45+ watts on "idle" until I removed a lot of stuff like asus lighting services etc. that were causing the CPU to run at 2-4% load constantly. Now it idles at around 35 watts. I generally have around 29 degrees celcius on true idle and typically 35 degrees average while browsing the web with 23 degrees ambient. Afaik the 5xxx series is much faster to ramp up the clocks than the older ones though so it will spike every time you open a new webpage etc. but average idle temps shouldn't be too bad.

AMD enforces what is stock though, unlike intel which lets the motherboard manufacturers run wild. They have set the limit to 142w as long as the cooling solution and VRMs permits it.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
For possible comparison, here's what an X470 + 5900X system "idles" at on a typical workday. RDP session open, Firefox, bunch of tray applications like TeamViewer etc. CPU power bounces around from 8-17W by the second.

1616783573038.png


Of course my system is affected by the 125W max AGESA bug in 1.2.0.0, I've never recorded it going above that. Probably my last AMD system.
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
Ryzen master doesn't show the full CPU power usage. The full CPU powerusage here is 38w, but ryzen master only shows CPU core power and SOC power. There are other parts to it and all contribute to the total power usage. The temp in ryzen master is die average so you can have hotter parts as well. I usually go by the hottest parts of the CPU and total CPU power consumption as I feel it is more relevant. Die average will be quite a bit lower than the hottest parts during low power usage. Difference in CPU die average between ryzen master and hwinfo is because of difference in polling snapshots.

1616787991631.png
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
I've never noticed any significant difference in the areas that both Ryzen Master and hwinfo measure. I'm not going for a 100% idle state, I'm doing work but my CPU package power in hwinfo is between 30-39W
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
Difference is in which number is used. E.g. the hottest part of the CPU will generally be either Tctl or CCD1, which generally are about 3-5 degrees above the die average (the number ryzen master uses) during light desktop usage (browsing, viewing youtube etc.). E.g. CCD1 shows average of 35 while the Die average shows 30. Fully idle is of course lower, which is the powerdraw when not using the computer at all and it just sits at the desktop with only background services.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
Difference is in which number is used. E.g. the hottest part of the CPU will generally be either Tctl or CCD1, which generally are about 3-5 degrees above the die average (the number ryzen master uses) during light desktop usage (browsing, viewing youtube etc.). E.g. CCD1 shows average of 35 while the Die average shows 30. Fully idle is of course lower, which is the powerdraw when not using the computer at all and it just sits at the desktop with only background services.

So I wanted to drop in here again since you helped me quite a bit on this issue.. but I updated to AGESA 1.2.0.1, reflashed my BIOS, cleared CMOS RAM, tried a format (that part didn't change anything, so I installed my backed up image), and narrowed my Prime95 instability to the RAM speed. On AGESA 1.1.8.0, I could run 3200 without any issue. On 1.2.0.0 and .1, it crashes P95 immediately. I have to run 2133. So I have been, while considering moving to a 10850K, 11700K or 11900K. And, I'm now seeing 142W peak on my CPU power draw, in P95 only, CBR20 is still not going over 125W. So there's something wrong with the boost with my board, but I don't seem hardcapped at 125W, at least not any longer. My temps are no longer low though, see I hit 90C at a point. Not something I'm worried about since it's Prime95 and couldn't really be duplicated in a real world task.

So that mostly answers the CBR20 PPT draw & low multicore score question and the root cause of my P95 crashes. It's pretty bad that an AGESA regression is causing crashes at Zen3 memory spec. I may just wait this out for AMD to get everything right, but it feels bad. I'm not giving them more money for a new B550 board to solve any issues. I take the stance if you won't support the stuff I already have, then why would I buy your new stuff to end up in the same position once that's old too? I'll just go to Intel if I swap anything out.

1617682263261.png
 
Last edited:

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
Kind of interesting that you get full usage in prime95, in all core mine goes to just below 130w with 24 thread small fft, only with blend do I get close to 142w. With small FFT I can get 142w with 5 and 6 threads. Using 5 threads with small fft is the absolute hottest I can get my CPU (high 70s or low 80s depending on cooling settings), but once I run something like 12 or more threads small fft it detects it and "throttles" to around 130w and temps go way down. Not sure if there are some bios features that detect load and adjusts CPU settings or similar.

My memory is on the QVL so both G.Skill and Asus say it is tested to be OK at rated speeds (outside of my TRC edit). I did check the QVL as I know that the ryzen CPUs don't have the best memory controller.

Is gear down on? I have to run with geardown due to having dual rank, not sure if you can get away with it off with 3200mhz memory. Most likely your memory will run at 3200mhz with relaxed timings, e.g. setting them manually. The 1.2.0.2 bios is afaik on its way, but probably a few more weeks. 1.2.0.1 patch A (modification to 1.2.0.1) was rushed out to fix/mitigate the USB issues some people where having.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
Kind of interesting that you get full usage in prime95, in all core mine goes to just below 130w with 24 thread small fft, only with blend do I get close to 142w. With small FFT I can get 142w with 5 and 6 threads. Using 5 threads with small fft is the absolute hottest I can get my CPU (high 70s or low 80s depending on cooling settings), but once I run something like 12 or more threads small fft it detects it and "throttles" to around 130w and temps go way down. Not sure if there are some bios features that detect load and adjusts CPU settings or similar.

My memory is on the QVL so both G.Skill and Asus say it is tested to be OK at rated speeds (outside of my TRC edit). I did check the QVL as I know that the ryzen CPUs don't have the best memory controller.

Is gear down on? I have to run with geardown due to having dual rank, not sure if you can get away with it off with 3200mhz memory. Most likely your memory will run at 3200mhz with relaxed timings, e.g. setting them manually. The 1.2.0.2 bios is afaik on its way, but probably a few more weeks. 1.2.0.1 patch A (modification to 1.2.0.1) was rushed out to fix/mitigate the USB issues some people where having.

There's nothing wrong with my RAM itself. It's passed multiple nights running memtest86 at its rated XMP speed (3200) on 4 different CPUs on 2 different motherboards. This started immediately after installing the latest BIOS that uses AGESA 1.2.0.0 (and also on .1). I ran optimized defaults before and after, so whatever that is. My RAM is dual rank Samsung b-die, which is unbelievably still for sale today. I bought it in 2017 for $350 USD- https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232218?Item=N82E16820232218 I originally built my old 1800X with a single rank b-die kit (https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232530?Item=N82E16820232530) but I wanted 2x16GB.

My screenshot above is P95 torture test blend, to be clear. That's all I ever run with P95. I was happy to see it actually hit 142W though. That proves there's no leftover Zen(+) cruft preventing my system from hitting its true power limit. While I may have a less-than-optimized boost going on, I'm glad to know there's not a hard cap on my system as it is. Boost under CBR20 may improve with future AGESA releases I hope. If not, oh well. I'm punished for not buying a new motherboard I suppose. It's a great victory for AMD and Asus!

I just checked geardown mode, and it's set to auto. Which for Asus usually means off. I'll do some testing on this after work today.This is why I came back here, I noticed you had your head better in this stuff than I do. :) Intel was always more forgivable on things like this, the memory controllers just-worked.

edit- couldn't resist testing this.. no change, still crashes immediately with geardown enabled. On AGESA 1.1.8.0, I had the exact same settings and pretty sure I even ran P95 torture test blend with CBR20 at the same time.
 
Last edited:

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
There's nothing wrong with my RAM itself. It's passed multiple nights running memtest86 at its rated XMP speed (3200) on 4 different CPUs on 2 different motherboards. This started immediately after installing the latest BIOS that uses AGESA 1.2.0.0 (and also on .1). I ran optimized defaults before and after, so whatever that is. My RAM is dual rank Samsung b-die, which is unbelievably still for sale today. I bought it in 2017 for $350 USD- https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232218?Item=N82E16820232218 I originally built my old 1800X with a single rank b-die kit (https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232530?Item=N82E16820232530) but I wanted 2x16GB.

My screenshot above is P95 torture test blend, to be clear. That's all I ever run with P95. I was happy to see it actually hit 142W though. That proves there's no leftover Zen(+) cruft preventing my system from hitting its true power limit. While I may have a less-than-optimized boost going on, I'm glad to know there's not a hard cap on my system as it is. Boost under CBR20 may improve with future AGESA releases I hope. If not, oh well. I'm punished for not buying a new motherboard I suppose. It's a great victory for AMD and Asus!

I just checked geardown mode, and it's set to auto. Which for Asus usually means off. I'll do some testing on this after work today.This is why I came back here, I noticed you had your head better in this stuff than I do. :) Intel was always more forgivable on things like this, the memory controllers just-worked.

edit- couldn't resist testing this.. no change, still crashes immediately with geardown enabled. On AGESA 1.1.8.0, I had the exact same settings and pretty sure I even ran P95 torture test blend with CBR20 at the same time.
Didn't mean that there is anything wrong with the ram, just that ryzen has a reputation for not being the best at memory compatability. Options that may be worth trying is to set more relaxed timings, e.g. 16-16-16-36 or upping the voltage a tiny bit to 1.4v. Personally I would probably increase timings rather than upping the voltage, but 1.4v should be fine for the CPU and b-die is known for it's ability to handle high voltage.

At least nice to see your system hitting full wattage, even if it sucks that you get instability at the same time.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
Didn't mean that there is anything wrong with the ram, just that ryzen has a reputation for not being the best at memory compatability. Options that may be worth trying is to set more relaxed timings, e.g. 16-16-16-36 or upping the voltage a tiny bit to 1.4v. Personally I would probably increase timings rather than upping the voltage, but 1.4v should be fine for the CPU and b-die is known for it's ability to handle high voltage.

At least nice to see your system hitting full wattage, even if it sucks that you get instability at the same time.

It's stable at 142W P95 torture test blend with 2133. And it was stable in that test at 3200. 😠 Damn thing.

I did try auto timings including checking that TRC was set to auto, and only bumped up the memory speed to 3200 and the voltage to 1.35 (XMP), swore it ran stable on first reboot at that.. but went back to test other settings, now I can't get it to stabilize at 3200 again. I'm pretty sure that there's something screwy with how AGESA stores values that are changed. I feel like when I do CMOS RAM resets, I have better chances at setting values and achieving stability. I may try a CMOS reset, set RAM to XMP and see how it goes. I've been resetting CMOS RAM for every little problem on my Ryzen builds since 2017. I hate AMD.
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
XMP should set speed and voltage along with CAS, tRP, tRCD and RAS, the rest it leaves on auto. It is possible that AMD/ASUS has changed some of the auto settings and that might be what causes issues. There are afaik also some settings that you might not get to, that are set automatically. If you can't get it stable with a reset, then try setting D.O.C.P. and 16-16-16-36 afterwards to see if that is more stable.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
XMP doesn't work for me now at all (meaning P95 torture test). The shocker is that I can't even leave it on auto, bump up to 3200 and voltage to XMP value, and have it work. I'll have to try yet another CMOS reset to be sure. I swear I had it working, and it seems like when I make changes to this system, things break irrevocably. Be interesting to test tonight. I'll do my changes with the case left open so I can more rapidly check what does and doesn't break things and get this narrowed down a bit more.

It'd definitely the most temperamental system I've had in my life. No one will ever tell me that Intel doesn't have better quality assurance, and I'll bet my life that they do more QA testing with more hardware in validation in their regression testing. After tonight's CMOS reset, I'll set it to DOCP and see if it's stable. If so, I'll never enter the BIOS again. This is Zen3 spec (3200) we're talking about- not overclocking. I don't overclock, the only thing I ever check for with my systems is if I'm getting the correct stock performance.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
XMP should set speed and voltage along with CAS, tRP, tRCD and RAS, the rest it leaves on auto. It is possible that AMD/ASUS has changed some of the auto settings and that might be what causes issues. There are afaik also some settings that you might not get to, that are set automatically. If you can't get it stable with a reset, then try setting D.O.C.P. and 16-16-16-36 afterwards to see if that is more stable.

Just got done testing this out. CMOS reset and XMP failed. Tried it with and without setting the TRC.
Reset and loose timings with XMP also failed (16-16-16-38).
Both of those behave exactly the same, reset immediately (sometimes with a bluescreen sometimes just a hard reset) upon starting P95 torture test blend 24-thread.

XMP worked fine on AGESA 1.1.8.0. I would've never guessed on the BIOS release that caused problems for me, they'd put in a firmware lock to prevent rolling back. I've gone back and forth between releases in the past, so it didn't even cross my mind. Great timing for it to be put into place, just as Zen 3 is being stabilized across 4 different chipsets..
Hopefully AMD gets this sorted out. I have my doubts that any positive changes are coming in 1.2.0.2, but maybe in a year. I did contact Asus, and I can RMA my board to have it flashed back to 1.1.8.0, but I'm not going through a teardown for that.

An aside, I noticed Gigabyte is the only vendor with any 400 series boards on 1.2.0.1A, and they also have all their 400 and 500 series boards on it. 😲 MSI/Asrock/Biostar are hit and miss depending on the model. The only other vendor close is Asus which has all their 400s on 1.2.0.1 and all the 500s on 1.2.0.1A. Gigabyte's B450 ITX board wouldn't have been a mistake for anyone that bought it- https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/B450-I-AORUS-PRO-WIFI-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios
I won't be dropping another dime on Ryzen gear though, I don't care how good Zen4 ends up being. Anytime I have a system with issues like this, I feel like I have a janky system and I want to get rid of it. I've thought hard on swapping out for a 10850K on Z490/Z590 which is a straight downgrade in every way but it'd feel a lot better.
 
Last edited:

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
What is your SOC voltage in HWINfo? For reference mine is between 1.070 and 1.082 on auto. Afaik that is the voltage that one increases, along with DRAM voltage, to get memory stable. Should not exceed 1.100v though.
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
If this is the right value, mine doesn't change. Of course this is 2133 as I'm able to test P95. Idle SoC Voltage (SVI2 TFN) 0.9750V, no change under P95 torture blend.
 

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
Afaik it should change when you set XMP/D.O.C.P. If it doesn't then that could be what causes the instability. It should need higher voltage with the higher fclock etc. along with increase of VDDG as well. It is possible to set higher than 1.1v, but it shouldn't need that much. My guess is that it should be around 1.050v or so on auto with d.o.c.p.
 
Last edited:

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
Afaik it should change when you set XMP/D.O.C.P. If it doesn't then that could be what causes the instability. It should need higher voltage with the higher fclock etc. along with increase of VDDG as well. It is possible to set higher than 1.1v, but it shouldn't need that much. My guess is that it should be around 1.050v or so on auto with d.o.c.p.
Yup, it does put it at 1.050V with XMP on.
 
Last edited:

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
An aside, I noticed Gigabyte is the only vendor with any 400 series boards on 1.2.0.1A, and they also have all their 400 and 500 series boards on it. 😲 MSI/Asrock/Biostar are hit and miss depending on the model. The only other vendor close is Asus which has all their 400s on 1.2.0.1 and all the 500s on 1.2.0.1A. Gigabyte's B450 ITX board wouldn't have been a mistake for anyone that bought it- https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/B450-I-AORUS-PRO-WIFI-rev-10/support#support-dl-bios
I won't be dropping another dime on Ryzen gear though, I don't care how good Zen4 ends up being. Anytime I have a system with issues like this, I feel like I have a janky system and I want to get rid of it. I've thought hard on swapping out for a 10850K on Z490/Z590 which is a straight downgrade in every way but it'd feel a lot better.
9 Asus boards now have AGESA 1.2.0.2 beta releases, including two lowly B550 boards. Only vendor with 1.2.0.2 releases out right now. Other than 20+ years of good luck with them, this is why I always run Asus. I'm expecting 1.2.0.2 on my X470 board before any other vendor has them out for 400 series. edit- MSI has some 1.2.0.2 betas out too. I support that! 👍
 
Last edited:

evhvis

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
86
9 Asus boards now have AGESA 1.2.0.2 beta releases, including two lowly B550 boards. Only vendor with 1.2.0.2 releases out right now. Other than 20+ years of good luck with them, this is why I always run Asus. I'm expecting 1.2.0.2 on my X470 board before any other vendor has them out for 400 series. edit- MSI has some 1.2.0.2 betas out too. I support that! 👍
lets hope it solves your issues :)
 

housecat

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
782
lets hope it solves your issues :)
I doubt it, I feel like they're scrambling right now in a big way with the USB issues. A lot of people are saying it's not fixed with AGESA1.2.0.2 on 500 series boards. It's not a good look. I know they're trying to cut off all the BIOS modders with by putting the locks in place to prevent installing custom changes, but they've really done a disservice by preventing someone like me with a legitimate reason to rollback. Pretty bad timing to do that when AMD is clearly struggling to support any of their chipsets. Posting about my issues across the web, the AMD defenders say I need a new board and mine is unsupported. Given I've received 4+ BIOS updates on my X470 board, it sure FEELS supported. :) The whole "one way beta BIOS update" strategy was never going to work, they (AMD/vendors) ended up supporting the 400 series boards permanently. Too many bugs to do it any other way. I've been looking for some USB programmers to force my board back on 1.1.8.0.

At that point though, I'm starting to get starry eyed dreaming about going back to Intel. I can get a Z490 + 10850K at Microcenter locally for $570. I paid $550 for my 5900X alone. Going rate right now for one is $700+.. given these issues, it's extremely tempting to be in the sweet warm bosom of Intel again. I always try to buy what's best and not fanboy it up, but I've had a thousand times the "luck" with Intel over the years. I might have to do it, the 10850 would last me for just as long as this system, it's ballpark in performance, and would do it without all the non-stop fiddling.
 
Top