• mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The only problem they ever had was back in the day they overheated easily.

    That’s not true. It was just last year that some of the Ryzen 7000 models were burning themselves out from the insides at default settings (within AMD specs) due to excessive SoC voltage. They fixed it through new specs and working with board manufacturers to issue new BIOS, and I think they eventually gave in to pressure to cover the damaged units. I guess we’ll see if Intel ends up doing the same.

    I generally agree with your sentiment, though. :)

    I just wish both brands would chill. Pushing the hardware so hard for such slim gains is wasting power and costing customers.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not from AMD. From the autogenerated transcript (with minor edits where it messed up the names of things):

          amd’s official recommendation [f]or the cut off now is 1.3 volts but the board vendors can still technically set whatever they want so even though the [AGESA] update can lock down and start restricting the voltage the problem is Asus their 1.3 number manifests itself as something like 1.34 volts so it is still on the high side

          This was pretty much all on motherboard manufacturers, and ASUS was particularly bad (out scumbaging MSI, good job, guys).

          At the start of this Intel mess, it was thought they had a similar issue on their hands and motherboard manufactures just needed to get in line, but it ended up going a lot deeper.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            That doesn’t contradict anything I wrote. Note that it says AMD’s recommended cutoff is now 1.3 volts, implying that it wasn’t before this mess began. Note also that the problem was worse on Asus boards because their components’ tolerance was a bit too loose for a target voltage this high, not because they used a voltage target beyond AMD’s specified cutoff. If the cutoff hadn’t been pushed so high for this generation in the first place, that same tolerance probably would have been okay.

            In any case, there’s no sense in bickering about it. Asus was not without blame (I was upset with them myself) but also not the only affected brand, so it’s not possible that they were the cause of the underlying problem, now is it?

            AMD and Intel have been pushing their CPUs to very high voltages and temperatures for small performance gains recently. 95°C as the new “normal” was unheard of just a few years ago. It’s no surprise that it led to damage in some cases, especially for early adopters. It’s a thin line to walk.

        • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then why were there essentially no blow ups from other motherboard manufacturers? Tell me if my information on this is wrong, but when there’s only one brand causing issues then they’re the ones to blame for it.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah. I just meant AMD cpus used to easily overheat if your cooling system had an issue. My ryzen 7 3700x has been freaking awesome though. Feels more solid than any PC I’ve built. And it’s fast AF. I think I saved over $150 when comparing to a similarly rated Intel CPU. And the motherboards generally seem cheaper for AMD too. I would feel ripped off with Intel even without the crashing issues

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Problem is that it’s getting extremely hard to get more single-threaded performance out of a chip, and this is one of the few ways to do so. And a lot of software is not going to be rewritten to use multiple cores. In some cases, it’s fundamentally impossible to parallelize a particular algorithm.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s not true. It was just last year that some of the Ryzen 7000 models were burning themselves

      I think he was referring to “back-in-the-day” when Athlons, unlike the competing Pentium 3 and 4 CPUs of the day, didn’t have any thermal protections and would literally go up in smoke if you ran them without cooling.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRn8ri9tKf8

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        When I started using computers, I wasn’t aware of any thermal protections in popular CPUs. Do you happen to know when they first appeared in Intel chips?

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Pentium 2 and 3 had rudimentary protection. They would simply shutdown if they got too hot. Pentium 4 was the first one that would throttle down clock speeds.

          Anything before that didn’t have any protection as far as I’m aware.

      • RdVortex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Some motherboards did have overheating protection back then though. Personally I had my Athlon XP computer randomly shut down several times back then, because the system had some issue, where fans would randomly start slowing down and eventually completely stop. This then triggered overheat protection of the motherboard, which simply cut the power as soon as the temperature was too hight.