Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

LAwLz

Member
  • Content Count

    15,605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

About LAwLz

  • Title
    Pseudo-intellectual Charlatan
  • Birthday Feb 11, 1993

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    LAwLz#8319

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sweden
  • Gender
    Female
  • Interests
    Anime/manga, networks, some gaming, tabletop RPGs and posting on forums.
  • Occupation
    Consultant (networking)

System

  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 1700X
  • Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING 5
  • RAM
    32GB @ 2666MHz CL16 (Corsair)
  • GPU
    MSI 1060 6GB Gaming
  • Case
    Fractal Design Define R5
  • Storage
    512GB Samsung 960 Pro - 500GB Samsung 850 EVO - 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 - 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F4
  • PSU
    Corsair RM750X
  • Display(s)
    Samsung C49RG9x
  • Cooling
    Noctua D15
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95 (Brown switches)
  • Mouse
    Logitech G502
  • Sound
    AKG K702 - FiiO E9
  • Operating System
    Windows 10

Recent Profile Visitors

35,421 profile views
  1. Also, they did say "through 2020". They have since deleted all references to "through 2020". You can still find posts where they say "through 2020" on the way back machine such as this one:
  2. Deceiving might be the wrong word. I think they made vague claims because they weren't sure what they were going to do or how to do it, and they never bothered to correct the misinterpretations people had (because that would be shooting themselves in the foot). AMD: "We are going to support AM4 until 2020, or maybe not we'll see" (they didn't even promise it would be supported until 2020 since they said they would change it if they had to). AMD fans: "oh wow! Does that mean I can buy a motherboard now and then when I buy your new CPU in 2020 I can just put it in the same
  3. I think anyone who has read your posts for any extended period of time will have picked up that you strongly dislike one particular CPU manufacturer and strongly likes the competitor. Yeah, that's what they ended up meaning. People interpreted "support AM4 until 2020" as meaning "if I buy an AM4 motherboard, new processors released in 2020 will work on it" and AMD never corrected any of those misinterpretations (why would they? It made them sell more products and gave their rabid fans some ammunition against Intel). Since AMD never specified that the chipsets wo
  4. The support documentation says it is supported. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6103523?co=GENIE.Platform%3DiOS&hl=en
  5. I don't have any problem with assumptions being made. I have a problem with people saying "this is how it is" when they are making assumptions without any actual knowledge on the subject. I've made assumptions in this thread too, but I have made it clear when I do. It's one thing to say: and another to say: I think the AGESA size is kind of irrelevant because yes, I do think that AMD shouldn't tell motherboard vendors what they can and can't do with their motherboards. Remember like a year ago when Intel started limit
  6. I don't think AMD are doing it to get more profits from chipsets. I think AMD overpromised in the early days of AM4 in order to try and pursue people into buying the platform, and now that they are suppose to deliver on what customers were sold on they realize it's too complicated and are throwing in the towel. They tried to sell Zen on future promises that they weren't sure on how to keep. *In before people try and argue that they technically didn't promise anything so therefore they are in the clear. But what I mean is that people who bought the early AM4 motherboards t
  7. So you are just making assumptions. Got it. Yes they did. Aren't you reading the thread? Here is one person saying it just a couple of posts above yours. In any case, you don't seem to understand what you are talking about so I would prefer if you didn't comment on it. It just leads to misinformation. Here are your arguments for why AMD aren't bad for doing this: 1) AMD should be allowed to tell motherboard manufacturers what they can and can't do with their boards because AMD are the ones developing the AGESA, which according to you is "90% of th
  8. So no source? It's just something you came up with and want to be true because your argument hinges on it? Again, if what you claim is true (that 90% of the BIOS is just what AMD has developed and is AGESA code) then why did they develop it for X370 to begin with? Just so that they could tell motherboard manufacturers no, don't release this? For those wondering, AGESA isn't just a single file. It's a collection of files. Each processor family has their own branch in the AGESA. When AMD ships a new platform, they don't just send out one massive A
  9. I'd love for you to post some source for that, because I am pretty sure you just assume that's true because you want it to be true. Think about this for a sec... If that was actually true then why did AMD develop this and then block a motherboard manufacturer from shipping it?
  10. I don't think it's even worth convicting him that he got the world completely backwards. If someone is so delusional that they truly believe that Intel never gets any flack for only supporting 2 generations of CPUs on their boards, then he is either lying, living in a parallel universe or doesn't really read many threads on this forum. Which is weird because Blademaster91 has literally said that people complain about Intel cutting chipset support sooner than they should before: I have the complete opposite view of this forum. People are very quick to give
  11. No they don't. The news here is that AMD are preventing motherboard manufacturers who has already developed the code from releasing BIOS updates. Even more reason to not restrict it. Just because some boards were bad does not mean it is okay to prevent all of them from being updated. You are also making generalizations about the boards here. My motherboard which is an X370 does not have a small BIOS chip. Why cater to the lowest common denominator? Why? We already have later motherboards that doesn't support zen1 and zen+. Doesn't re
  12. Because: 1) AMD are telling motherboard manufacturers what they can and can't support on their boards. I think motherboard manufacturers should be free to do whatever with their boards. 2) It makes it so that some customers will need to buy a new motherboard despite there being 0 technical reasons for it. Very similar to what Intel has been doing and constantly getting shit on for the last decade or so. Except with Intel there are actually some (small or not) technical reasons for it.
  13. That's a weird way of phrasing it. Are you trying to make it sound like AMD gave users 3 upgrades and Intel only one? It's 2 CPU generations vs 3 CPU generations. Not 1 vs 3. But shouldn't that be up to the motherboard manufacturer to decide which CPUs they want to support and how to go about it? Shouldn't a motherboard manufacturer be free to let's say support 4 generations of CPUs by making their GUI simpler, or cutting support for uncommon chips? They haven't had issues with motherboard manufacturers doing similar things before. Also, what does beta bios ha
  14. I can with ease find 30 posts on this forum complaining about Intel changing socket every second generation. You can't go 5 replies an Intel or AMD thread before someone mentions it. Also, changing socket and telling motherboard manufacturers that they are not allowed to make their products work with newer generation CPUs are a bit different, even though the outcome is the same. In any case, this is a dick move from AMD and I honestly don't understand how people can defend it. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD will start changing the pin layout more often now. AM4 s
  15. Enterprise phones are often not just regular phones taken out of the box. They are managed by an MDM tool (or at least SHOULD be). Using that tool you can control pretty much anything on the device, just like you can prevent unauthorized programs from being installed on a domain joined Windows machine. It would be trivial to add a "do not allow sideloaded applications" in an MDM tool. Hell, they already have far more complicated settings such as blocking and allowing individual apps from the app store using MDM tool.
×