Moral of the story: Dont' buy from Asus. Data corruption with 12900K

[alpha754293]

Has anybody else experienced data corruption as a result of the 12900K/Z690 platform in Linux?

 

I’m still using CentOS 7.7.1908 with the 3.10.1127 kernel (because the newer kernels causes a kernel panic due to a conflict with my Infiniband ConnectX-4 card/system/kernel modules), and I’ve been getting bad page frame numbers fairly regularly now, albeit at different times.

 

It used to complain about the r8125 kernel module, but since then, I’ve disabled that and put in an Intel Desktop CT gigabit NIC instead and I’m still getting kernel error reports of bad page frame numbers.

Now, the new issue that I’ve discovered is that in processing my data (using pixz), upon checking the archives that my 12900K produces, it says that the archive/tarball files are corrupt or have problems with it (but I am not getting this same problem with my AMD Ryzen 9 5950X). (Both systems use Crucial DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC RAM.)

 

Just wondering if anybody else is seeing this issue under Linux.

 

Thanks.

*updates*

I actually threw on Windows 10 20H2 and then upgraded it to 21H2 just to see if I would be able to use the system as a Windows system (instead of as a Linux system).

 

(With the intention that it was going to maybe be the system that was going to take over the virtualization management/hosting tasks as I’ve got between 8-10 VMs that I can have it host instead of using my old 6700K.)

 

And when I was trying to import the OVA applications, it was failing, saying that the OVA source images (that I created and verified as working) were corrupted.

 

So now I am running memtest86 and sure enough, I’m currently at around 25 minutes into the test (pass 1, test 6) and it has already recorded over 700 errors.

 

So, the next thing that I am going to have to do to be able to tell whether it’s a CPU problem or whether it’s a memory problem would be to take the same four sticks of Crucial 32GB DDR4-3200 RAM and put those into my AMD Ryzen 9 5950X system, and run memtest86 on the same four sticks to see if I am getting the errors again.

 

If I’m not, then I know that it’s the CPU that’s the problem.

 

re: testing the primary storage media
Not a bad idea, but I am using a HGST 1 TB SATA 6 Gbps 7200 rpm HDD, so in theory, it is less likely, though not immune, to problems.

But yeah, this is going to be a “fun week” for me, having to do this hardware testing.

 

I'm not using XMP.

 

For those that have been following this saga, I actually pulled the memory that was in my 5950X system (also four sticks of Crucial 32 GB DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC RAM, which passed memtest86 on said 5950X system before I pulled it).

 

This happened:
 

 

There is definitely something wrong with the CPU and/or the motherboard in order to produce this result.

*updates 2022-04-04*
Intel has offered a full refund on the defective unit. Asus has not offered a full refund on the defective motherboard. Asus, so far, has only offered RMA repair, which I had already told them that I was in the process of getting the CPU RMA'd back to Intel, which means that even if Asus repaired the defective motherboard, I would have no way of verifying that it works because the CPU would've been sent back to Intel already by the time the motherboard comes back from RMA repair.

So, moral of the story:

Don't buy from Asus.

[WereCat]

have you tested the RAM on that system to make sure it's not the cause?

[alpha754293]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

have you tested the RAM on that system to make sure it's not the cause?

Yup.

 

Sorry -- I was editing the post with more details/information when you replied.

I ran memtest86 thrice already:

Once on the 12900K with the original 4 DIMMS of memory, which produced this:

 

And then I ran memtest86 on my AMD Ryzen 9 5950X system (also four sticks of Crucial 32 GB DDR4-3200), which produced this:

 

And then I popped the four DIMMs that were in my 5950X system into the 12900K system, which produced this:

 

[WereCat]

9 minutes ago, alpha754293 said:

Yup.

 

Sorry -- I was editing the post with more details/information when you replied.

I ran memtest86 thrice already:

Once on the 12900K with the original 4 DIMMS of memory, which produced this:

 

And then I ran memtest86 on my AMD Ryzen 9 5950X system (also four sticks of Crucial 32 GB DDR4-3200), which produced this:

 

And then I popped the four DIMMs that were in my 5950X system into the 12900K system, which produced this:

 

Did that system in video completely shut off during memtest?

 

I have that on my own system where everything keeps running fine as long as I set DRAM CURRENT CAPABILITY to 120% in BIOS from the default 100% (R9 3900x + Crosshair VIII Hero x570, also 4x16GB Crucial Ballistix 3200CL16).

 

I only have to set that for 4 sticks, works fine with 2.

 

 

But there can be a different issue on your system for sure. It may also be a bad memory controller on the i9 12900k or for some reason the XMP profile just does not play nicely with the default settings on your motherboard and needs manual tweaking in BIOS.

[xg32]

i'm surprised intel gave u a refund tbh, that's on the retailer, not the manufacturer, this is not to say asus warranty actually exists in the US. 

 

It's most likely the motherboard and not the cpu if i had to pick one.

[alpha754293]

5 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Did that system in video completely shut off during memtest?

 

I have that on my own system where everything keeps running fine as long as I set DRAM CURRENT CAPABILITY to 120% in BIOS from the default 100% (R9 3900x + Crosshair VIII Hero x570, also 4x16GB Crucial Ballistix 3200CL16).

 

I only have to set that for 4 sticks, works fine with 2.

 

 

But there can be a different issue on your system for sure. It may also be a bad memory controller on the i9 12900k or for some reason the XMP profile just does not play nicely with the default settings on your motherboard and needs manual tweaking in BIOS.

Yes, the system spontaneously reset itself very early in the test.

 

To your point regarding the current capability, that's the thing though:
The original four DIMMs that I had installed in the system, at least it was able to run the test to the point where memtest86 self-aborted "due to too many errors" (apparently once memtest logs > 10,000 errors, it thinks that's too many, and stops testing). But at least it was able to get that far.

When I swapped the memory for the four sticks from my 5950X system (both system are using Crucial 32 GB DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC memory, Crucial P/N: CT2K32G4DFD832A), that's when this spontaneous reset occurred.

 

And the weird/crazy thing is that on my 5950X system though, the four sticks that came from said 5950X system passed memtest86 in said 5950X system.

It was only after they were moved to the 12900K/Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 system where it would spontaneously reset the system like this.

So clearly, there is something wrong with the 12900K in conjunction with this Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 motherboard.

[alpha754293]

7 minutes ago, xg32 said:

i'm surprised intel gave u a refund tbh, that's on the retailer, not the manufacturer, this is not to say asus warranty actually exists in the US. 

 

It's most likely the motherboard and not the cpu if i had to pick one.

Well, I showed them the pictures and video that you see here.

 

It would've been on the retailer if I was still within the 30-day refund window.

This is 3 months in service (3MIS).

 

It's hard to say whether it's the motherboard or the CPU or both.

And I say that because the memory controller is on-die, on the CPU, so if there is a problem with the memory controller which may be contributing to the over 10,000 errors that memtest86 originally found, then that would be a CPU issue (and/or more specifically, the on-die memory controller issue).

As for the motherboard, the fact that I was at least able to run the test for a few passes in the 10 hours and 52 minutes that memtest86 was running, shows that it CAN test the memory. But then, the moment that I swapped the memory from my 5950X system to the 12900K/Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 system and it spontaneously resets the system as shown in the video within 90 seconds; clearly that shows that there is also a problem with the motherboard as well.

Either way, I'm not going to subject my wallet to testing this over and over and again, and enriching the parcel delivery services company, where I am constantly shipping stuff back and forth in order to try and figure out what is the root cause of the issue.

At this point, I have deemed that the processor and the platform/motherboard is not reliable and untrustworthy.

I am glad that Intel was willing to offer a full refund of the purchase price of the processor.

I think that Asus should be doing the same for a motherboard that's only been 3 months in service. (As a warranty issue, Asus should be taking a LOT of interest as to why a motherboard is failing 3MIS.)

Apparently, Asus doesn't care enough about their product nor their customers or they don't care enough to be willing to offer a refund on a motherboard that has failed in such a catastrophic and spectacular way. (The fact that I can't even stay in memtest86 for > 90 seconds is VERY telling that there is CLEARLY an issue with their motherboard. If I were Asus, I'd DEFINITELY want to issue the refund to buy the board back to try and figure out why.)

memtest86 is not a super complicate program to run (compared to an entire OS). And if I can't get through 90 seconds of that, it's no wonder why I am having data corruption issues on that system.

(My 5950X, on the other hand, has been super solid/stable.)

[alpha754293]

28 minutes ago, WereCat said:

or for some reason the XMP profile just does not play nicely with the default settings on your motherboard and needs manual tweaking in BIOS.

As I mentioned, I was updating my original post when you had replied.

I don't use XMP.

[Brooksie359]

11 minutes ago, alpha754293 said:

Well, I showed them the pictures and video that you see here.

 

It would've been on the retailer if I was still within the 30-day refund window.

This is 3 months in service (3MIS).

 

It's hard to say whether it's the motherboard or the CPU or both.

And I say that because the memory controller is on-die, on the CPU, so if there is a problem with the memory controller which may be contributing to the over 10,000 errors that memtest86 originally found, then that would be a CPU issue (and/or more specifically, the on-die memory controller issue).

As for the motherboard, the fact that I was at least able to run the test for a few passes in the 10 hours and 52 minutes that memtest86 was running, shows that it CAN test the memory. But then, the moment that I swapped the memory from my 5950X system to the 12900K/Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 system and it spontaneously resets the system as shown in the video within 90 seconds; clearly that shows that there is also a problem with the motherboard as well.

Either way, I'm not going to subject my wallet to testing this over and over and again, and enriching the parcel delivery services company, where I am constantly shipping stuff back and forth in order to try and figure out what is the root cause of the issue.

At this point, I have deemed that the processor and the platform/motherboard is not reliable and untrustworthy.

I am glad that Intel was willing to offer a full refund of the purchase price of the processor.

I think that Asus should be doing the same for a motherboard that's only been 3 months in service. (As a warranty issue, Asus should be taking a LOT of interest as to why a motherboard is failing 3MIS.)

Apparently, Asus doesn't care enough about their product nor their customers or they don't care enough to be willing to offer a refund on a motherboard that has failed in such a catastrophic and spectacular way. (The fact that I can't even stay in memtest86 for > 90 seconds is VERY telling that there is CLEARLY an issue with their motherboard. If I were Asus, I'd DEFINITELY want to issue the refund to buy the board back to try and figure out why.)

memtest86 is not a super complicate program to run (compared to an entire OS). And if I can't get through 90 seconds of that, it's no wonder why I am having data corruption issues on that system.

(My 5950X, on the other hand, has been super solid/stable.)

Tbh I don't know of many companies that give refunds out after the first 30 days and that is usually on the retailer so sure don't buy from asus but who are you going to buy from that will give you a refund in that scenario?

[alpha754293]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Tbh I don't know of many companies that give refunds out after the first 30 days and that is usually on the retailer so sure don't buy from asus but who are you going to buy from that will give you a refund in that scenario?

Perhaps a more interesting and important question that should be asked in light of this is "why DO we put up with companies who don't or won't offer a refund, say within the first year of purchase or something along those lines?"

I am of the opinion that if you can't boot into memtest86 and stay there for more than 90 seconds, you should be able to get a refund.

And if you can't, then why do we, as consumers in the industry, are willing to put up with this fact that we can't get a refund for a defective product, for a system that's only been in service for 3 months? The industry's collective unwillingness to stand by their products says a LOT about the companies, their products, and the industry as a whole.

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, alpha754293 said:

Perhaps a more interesting and important question that should be asked in light of this is "why DO we put up with companies who don't or won't offer a refund, say within the first year of purchase or something along those lines?"

I am of the opinion that if you can't boot into memtest86 and stay there for more than 90 seconds, you should be able to get a refund.

And if you can't, then why do we, as consumers in the industry, are willing to put up with this fact that we can't get a refund for a defective product, for a system that's only been in service for 3 months? The industry's collective unwillingness to stand by their products says a LOT about the companies, their products, and the industry as a whole.

Well I guess I would have to disagree with you on this point. We can all see that getting a refund after owning a product for 2 years then it breaks under warranty doesn't make sense. So they have to cut off the time frame you can get a refund and most companies do 30 days as a standard. This is enough time to reasonably see if you like the product or not and if you have any issues with it. After that you can still get a replacement for the part which for most people is enough. I mean parts fail and we have warranties for that so we can get a replacement part be it them repairing the original part or a totally new part. Also a product failing early on is pretty typical as that is usually when they would do so. They either break early or start to fail around the time when wear and tear gets to them and that is usually after the warranty period for obvious reasons. 

[alpha754293]

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well I guess I would have to disagree with you on this point. We can all see that getting a refund after owning a product for 2 years then it breaks under warranty doesn't make sense. So they have to cut off the time frame you can get a refund and most companies do 30 days as a standard. This is enough time to reasonably see if you like the product or not and if you have any issues with it. After that you can still get a replacement for the part which for most people is enough. I mean parts fail and we have warranties for that so we can get a replacement part be it them repairing the original part or a totally new part. Also a product failing early on is pretty typical as that is usually when they would do so. They either break early or start to fail around the time when wear and tear gets to them and that is usually after the warranty period for obvious reasons. 

But this isn't the case here.

 

I agree with you that there is a cutoff, but even Intel, for example, has a 3-year limited warranty on their processors (Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005862/processors.html)

 

Conversely, Asus' own warranty policy also state that they warranty their motherboards also for 3-years, except that Intel has an explicit statement/clause in the terms of their warranty for a refund (and/or repair and/or replace) whereas Asus (and pretty much all other motherboard manufacturers) do NOT have the refund clause in their warranty policy.

 

So think about it: why would Intel allow you to get a refund for upto 3 years which is within their limited warranty documentation whilst motherboard manufacturers don't allow you to get a refund at all?

Or asking the same question in a slightly different way: why would we allow motherboard manufacturers to get away with NOT being able to issue a refund (EVER), whilst Intel offers a refund for upto 3 years, as stipulated in the terms of their warranty policy?

 

The underlying assumptions in your statement above assumes that the platform is stable and operative once you've hit > 30 days/1 month in service (for motherboards, where MOST retailers allow for 30 day refund window).

 

But that's not the case here.

 

The data and evidence with the failure of this Intel Core i9-12900K and this Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 motherboard shows that you can have a full, complete, and catastrophic PLATFORM failure within or close to 3 months in service. (I think that I'm actually a little over 90 days because I started building the system around Christmas 2021 and this failure really reared its head maybe about a week ago?)

 

It is entirely possible that the on-die memory controller on the 12900K has failed which is a part of the contributing factor in regards to memtest86 showing the memory errors during the course of the test.

 

But on the part of the motherboard, the fact that I was able to test an entire different set of four DIMMs of Crucial DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC memory, (same Crucial P/N), which PASSED on the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X/Asus X570 TUF Gaming Pro WiFi system/platform before I popped those same four sticks into the Intel Core i9-12900K/Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 platform, which resulted in the video shown above, clearly shows that there is also a problem with the motherboard.

At least on the Intel platform, the first set of four DIMMs, memtest86 was able to run for 10 hours 52 minutes before memtest self-aborted "due to too many errors".

But on the second set, as you can see in the video, it couldn't even run the test for a minute before the system spontaneously reset itself.

As I mentioned, I don't use XMP.

The expectation that I have (from the motherboard) is that I should be able to pop in the other set of four DIMMs of memory, and have it run memtest on it, at least for the same 10 hours 52 minutes as the first set of four DIMMs.

But on the second set, it couldn't even run it for 60 seconds.

The assumption with the warranty policy is that the system and/or the platform and/or the CPU is stable after the first 30 days. I think that it is important to think about the assumptions that went on behind the scenes and into why and how the warranty policy is drafted (and approved/authorized by the company).

 

But here, in this case, this is clearly NOT the case.

 

Asus has repeatedly offered to repair the motherboard under RMA.

 

And I repeately tell them, that even if they performed said repairs under RMA, because I have already sent the CPU back to Intel for a full refund, therefore; I would have no way of testing and verify that the repairs have been performed correctly and that it fixed the issue.

 

And you can say "well...it's your choice whether you want to buy another CPU or not".

 

To which, I say: "If you have experience with a PLATFORM that doesn't work/perform as you would expect, why would you give the PLATFORM another opportunity to make a fool of yourself?" As the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So why would you avail the PLATFORM the opportunity to fool you again?

 

If you know, for example, that a product has a problem with it, why would you keep buying that product?

 

That makes no sense.

 

Like I said, I agree with you that there should be a cut-off period. Both Intel and the motherboard manufacturers typically have a 3-year limited warranty on their products.

 

The only difference is that Intel EXPLICITLY state that refund is a potential remedy for warranty claims whilst none of the motherboard manufacturers offer that.

So why would Intel offer said refund under their 3-year limited warranty policy whilst we allow and accept the fact that motherboard manufacturers do not offer the same?

 

Why should be accept that as the status quo, if you have one of the key components that is required for the operation of the motherboard CAN be refunded within the 3-year limited warranty period, per policy? (i.e. why one but not the other?)

Why do and should we accept the fact that motherboard manufacturers don't offer ANY kind of refund at all?

Pursuant to your point, even if the motherboard manufacturers had a 1 year policy, that's still better than the status quo, which is none at all.

 

Do the motherboard manufacturers have an issue in regards to the confidence of their products which is why they don't/won't offer even a 1-year refund warranty policy?

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, alpha754293 said:

But this isn't the case here.

 

I agree with you that there is a cutoff, but even Intel, for example, has a 3-year limited warranty on their processors (Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005862/processors.html)

 

Conversely, Asus' own warranty policy also state that they warranty their motherboards also for 3-years, except that Intel has an explicit statement/clause in the terms of their warranty for a refund (and/or repair and/or replace) whereas Asus (and pretty much all other motherboard manufacturers) do NOT have the refund clause in their warranty policy.

 

So think about it: why would Intel allow you to get a refund for upto 3 years which is within their limited warranty documentation whilst motherboard manufacturers don't allow you to get a refund at all?

Or asking the same question in a slightly different way: why would we allow motherboard manufacturers to get away with NOT being able to issue a refund (EVER), whilst Intel offers a refund for upto 3 years, as stipulated in the terms of their warranty policy?

 

The underlying assumptions in your statement above assumes that the platform is stable and operative once you've hit > 30 days/1 month in service (for motherboards, where MOST retailers allow for 30 day refund window).

 

But that's not the case here.

 

The data and evidence with the failure of this Intel Core i9-12900K and this Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 motherboard shows that you can have a full, complete, and catastrophic PLATFORM failure within or close to 3 months in service. (I think that I'm actually a little over 90 days because I started building the system around Christmas 2021 and this failure really reared its head maybe about a week ago?)

 

It is entirely possible that the on-die memory controller on the 12900K has failed which is a part of the contributing factor in regards to memtest86 showing the memory errors during the course of the test.

 

But on the part of the motherboard, the fact that I was able to test an entire different set of four DIMMs of Crucial DDR4-3200 unbuffered, non-ECC memory, (same Crucial P/N), which PASSED on the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X/Asus X570 TUF Gaming Pro WiFi system/platform before I popped those same four sticks into the Intel Core i9-12900K/Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 platform, which resulted in the video shown above, clearly shows that there is also a problem with the motherboard.

At least on the Intel platform, the first set of four DIMMs, memtest86 was able to run for 10 hours 52 minutes before memtest self-aborted "due to too many errors".

But on the second set, as you can see in the video, it couldn't even run the test for a minute before the system spontaneously reset itself.

As I mentioned, I don't use XMP.

The expectation that I have (from the motherboard) is that I should be able to pop in the other set of four DIMMs of memory, and have it run memtest on it, at least for the same 10 hours 52 minutes as the first set of four DIMMs.

But on the second set, it couldn't even run it for 60 seconds.

The assumption with the warranty policy is that the system and/or the platform and/or the CPU is stable after the first 30 days. I think that it is important to think about the assumptions that went on behind the scenes and into why and how the warranty policy is drafted (and approved/authorized by the company).

 

But here, in this case, this is clearly NOT the case.

 

Asus has repeatedly offered to repair the motherboard under RMA.

 

And I repeately tell them, that even if they performed said repairs under RMA, because I have already sent the CPU back to Intel for a full refund, therefore; I would have no way of testing and verify that the repairs have been performed correctly and that it fixed the issue.

 

And you can say "well...it's your choice whether you want to buy another CPU or not".

 

To which, I say: "If you have experience with a PLATFORM that doesn't work/perform as you would expect, why would you give the PLATFORM another opportunity to make a fool of yourself?" As the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So why would you avail the PLATFORM the opportunity to fool you again?

 

If you know, for example, that a product has a problem with it, why would you keep buying that product?

 

That makes no sense.

 

Like I said, I agree with you that there should be a cut-off period. Both Intel and the motherboard manufacturers typically have a 3-year limited warranty on their products.

 

The only difference is that Intel EXPLICITLY state that refund is a potential remedy for warranty claims whilst none of the motherboard manufacturers offer that.

So why would Intel offer said refund under their 3-year limited warranty policy whilst we allow and accept the fact that motherboard manufacturers do not offer the same?

 

Why should be accept that as the status quo, if you have one of the key components that is required for the operation of the motherboard CAN be refunded within the 3-year limited warranty period, per policy? (i.e. why one but not the other?)

Why do and should we accept the fact that motherboard manufacturers don't offer ANY kind of refund at all?

Pursuant to your point, even if the motherboard manufacturers had a 1 year policy, that's still better than the status quo, which is none at all.

 

Do the motherboard manufacturers have an issue in regards to the confidence of their products which is why they don't/won't offer even a 1-year refund warranty policy?

I think you are misinterpreting what I was saying. The failure curve for basically any product is u chapped with a ton of failures at the start from manufacturing defects and whatnot and then you get a ton of failures after a certain amount of time when wear and tear causes the product to fail. Usually the plan warranties around that by have the warranty end before that large amount of failures due to wear and tear happens. This isn't to say you can get unlucky and have your product fail between these two points of interest it's just much less likely. Anyways if you liked it enough to keep it past the 30 days it would seem like your biggest issue is that the product did break which tbh seems a bit silly to me. Products can fail especially earlier on in it life due to defects so to say something is a bad product because you happened to get unlucky and get a dud isn't really fair to the company or anyone else. Also the intel is a bit weird in what they do as if you had a product for 3 years and get a full refund due to warranty you just got a 3 year lease on a product for free which is sorta redicilous when you think about it.

[TC_off]

I’m sorry you hear that your new system isn’t playing nice. Just out of interest - is the ram being tested on the motherboards QVL? I’ve been religious about using QVLs to build systems as it gives me some comeback with the manufacturer. I know that QVLs shouldn’t dictate that RAM or Storage should work but at least it’s something the motherboard manufacturer will have tested so it narrows troubleshooting somewhat.

[alpha754293]

On 4/6/2022 at 4:29 AM, Brooksie359 said:

Anyways if you liked it enough to keep it past the 30 days it would seem like your biggest issue is that the product did break which tbh seems a bit silly to me.

Why would a product breaking seem "silly" to you?

 

I'm not sure what would be "silly" about a product breaking.

The problem that I have is you have a product that started to fail within 3 months-in-service.

 

Even if the motherboard was warrantied for 3 years, why would you accept a product that would or can start to fail, pursuant to the stated policies, on day 31 of ownership?

 

THAT is what, I would find, would be "silly" to me.

 

On 4/6/2022 at 4:29 AM, Brooksie359 said:

Anyways if you liked it enough to keep it past the 30 days it would seem like your biggest issue is that the product did break which tbh seems a bit silly to me. Products can fail especially earlier on in it life due to defects so to say something is a bad product because you happened to get unlucky and get a dud isn't really fair to the company or anyone else.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the shape of the reliability curve approaches is global minimum threshold at around the 30 day mark (per your comment about how "Product can fail especially earlier on it life due to defects...", but you failed to define what "earlier" means.

Are we talking 30 days? 60 days? 90 days? What's "early" according to your definition?

 

Further, the assumption that the warranty also makes is that if the motherboard fails, then you can send it back for a RMA repair, which means that other components haven't also failed as well.

 

But again, that's an assumption on the part of the motherboard manufacturer. (i.e. board fails, but your CPU is fine).

 

The motherboard manufacturer assumes that if your CPU is fine, then they can repair the motherboard under RMA, send it back to you, you pop your CPU back in, and then you're back up and running.

 

That assumption doesn't hold/isn't true here.
 

The CPU has already been authorized for a refund. For all I know, it can be the on-die memory controller that failed on it.

 

Either way, once you know that there is a problem with a product, the motherboard manufacturer then makes a further assumption that you are going to continue using that problematic product even after said RMA repair. And as I've told Asus, I've already RMA'd the CPU back to Intel for a refund, and therefore; even if Asus were to repair the motherboard under a RMA, I would no longer have a way to verify that the RMA repairs were successful because I won't have a CPU anymore.

 

If you have already experience a PLATFORM failure like this, where both the CPU and the motherboard are being RMA'd, which means that you KNOW that there is a problem, why would you continue to buy something that you have already experienced a problem with?

 

You've already experienced a problem with a product. So why would you keep buying the same product over and over again? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

On 4/6/2022 at 4:29 AM, Brooksie359 said:

Products can fail especially earlier on in it life due to defects so to say something is a bad product because you happened to get unlucky and get a dud isn't really fair to the company or anyone else.

Sounds like somebody is getting all butthurt over this.

Since when is this about being "fair"?

if this was about "fairness", then the motherboard manufacturers should've adopted a warranty policy similar to Intel's where they stand by their products for upto 3 years, during which, you can get a refund if it fails.

That would be fair, because at least then the warranty policies of Intel and Asus would be aligned.

But as it stands, in its present state, it's not.

(And to your earlier point, none of the motherboard manufacturers allow for the provision of getting a refund from their documented warranty policies. Fair would be if they actually allowed and enabled that. That is what would be fair. You write about "...isn't really fair to the company or anyone else." Where is the fairness to the customer? More importantly, why aren't you talking/writing about that. And/or why do you accept the fact that none of the motherboard manufacturers have a documented provision in their warranty policies which allows them to give a refund for a defective product for the entire duration of the warranty - 3 years? None of the motherboard manufacturers having the refund provision in their warranty policies is crap. Why would you accept crap?)

 

And also further to your statement: "...isn't really fair to the company or anyone else."

Are you arguing that it isn't fair to the company because I am documenting my experiences with their product for all to see and read about? Because to me, it sounds a LOT like rather than talking about what the COMPANY is doing, what you're talking about instead, is the person who found out what said company is doing. Why is the focus placed on the messenger rather than on the company?

 

On 4/6/2022 at 4:29 AM, Brooksie359 said:

Also the intel is a bit weird in what they do as if you had a product for 3 years and get a full refund due to warranty you just got a 3 year lease on a product for free which is sorta redicilous when you think about it.

That's not even REMOTELY CLOSE to being true and representative of the facts.

 

You can't just send the CPU back to Intel on day 1094 of ownership, claim that there's a problem with it, hoping you'll get a refund.

 

I don't know why you would make that up.

 

(It amazing what the brain will pass on as knowledge when a gap in knowledge exists.)

 

You have to be able to proof/provide the data and the evidence that abides by and is aligned to the documented warranty policy from Intel, which means that in order to be able to send it back for a refund, you would have to be able to provide documented data/evidence/proof that there is a problem with it in order to even QUALIFY for said refund; of which, refund is only one of THREE remedies available to said Intel (and by extension, to you.)

 

Your statement: "you just got a 3 year lease on a product for free" is patently false and is literally NOT what Intel's Boxed Processor Limited Warranty states.

I don't know why you would make stuff up like that, but there you have it.

(You want to talk about "fair" - if you want to talk about "fair", why would you make stuff up like that which you should know or ought to know that your statement is knowingly fraudulent misrepresentation (or at minimum, neglegent misrepresentation)? What's "fair" about you making stuff like that?)

[alpha754293]

On 4/9/2022 at 5:47 PM, TC_off said:

I’m sorry you hear that your new system isn’t playing nice. Just out of interest - is the ram being tested on the motherboards QVL? I’ve been religious about using QVLs to build systems as it gives me some comeback with the manufacturer. I know that QVLs shouldn’t dictate that RAM or Storage should work but at least it’s something the motherboard manufacturer will have tested so it narrows troubleshooting somewhat.

I don't remember if the memory that I purchased were on the motherboard's QVL list at the time when I bought it or not.

 

To be fair and frank though, there are a lot more memory modules that exists in the market than what Asus can realistically test and put on their QVL list.

The second problem with QVL lists is that it grows and/or changes over time and that if a module isn't listed on said QVL list, is that because they didn't test it (yet) (or ever), or is it because they tested it and it failed their QVL tests?

The exclusion of a module doesn't tell me which of the two potential reasons why a module isn't on there.

Further, a motherboard should be compliant to the JEDEC standards, which also means that if a RAM module is also compliant to said JEDEC standard (i.e. NOT XMP); then it should qualify with said motherboard given the fact that they're both compliant to the same JEDEC standard.

[freeagent]

I’ve had good luck with Asus over the last 20 years or so. They have been my go to brand. Sorry to hear of your troubles.

[m9x3mos]

1 hour ago, freeagent said:

I’ve had good luck with Asus over the last 20 years or so. They have been my go to brand. Sorry to hear of your troubles.

I actuality just switched back to them from gigabyte due to their recent issues.  My z690 hero has been great. 

I think it is a faulty assumption to think it is a platform issue rather than a bad component between the motherboard or cpu. I ran the same tests on my machine when it was built and don't have that problem. If this was truly a platform issue there would be many more complaints IMHO. 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, alpha754293 said:

Why would a product breaking seem "silly" to you?

 

I'm not sure what would be "silly" about a product breaking.

The problem that I have is you have a product that started to fail within 3 months-in-service.

 

Even if the motherboard was warrantied for 3 years, why would you accept a product that would or can start to fail, pursuant to the stated policies, on day 31 of ownership?

 

THAT is what, I would find, would be "silly" to me.

 

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the shape of the reliability curve approaches is global minimum threshold at around the 30 day mark (per your comment about how "Product can fail especially earlier on it life due to defects...", but you failed to define what "earlier" means.

Are we talking 30 days? 60 days? 90 days? What's "early" according to your definition?

 

Further, the assumption that the warranty also makes is that if the motherboard fails, then you can send it back for a RMA repair, which means that other components haven't also failed as well.

 

But again, that's an assumption on the part of the motherboard manufacturer. (i.e. board fails, but your CPU is fine).

 

The motherboard manufacturer assumes that if your CPU is fine, then they can repair the motherboard under RMA, send it back to you, you pop your CPU back in, and then you're back up and running.

 

That assumption doesn't hold/isn't true here.
 

The CPU has already been authorized for a refund. For all I know, it can be the on-die memory controller that failed on it.

 

Either way, once you know that there is a problem with a product, the motherboard manufacturer then makes a further assumption that you are going to continue using that problematic product even after said RMA repair. And as I've told Asus, I've already RMA'd the CPU back to Intel for a refund, and therefore; even if Asus were to repair the motherboard under a RMA, I would no longer have a way to verify that the RMA repairs were successful because I won't have a CPU anymore.

 

If you have already experience a PLATFORM failure like this, where both the CPU and the motherboard are being RMA'd, which means that you KNOW that there is a problem, why would you continue to buy something that you have already experienced a problem with?

 

You've already experienced a problem with a product. So why would you keep buying the same product over and over again? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

Sounds like somebody is getting all butthurt over this.

Since when is this about being "fair"?

if this was about "fairness", then the motherboard manufacturers should've adopted a warranty policy similar to Intel's where they stand by their products for upto 3 years, during which, you can get a refund if it fails.

That would be fair, because at least then the warranty policies of Intel and Asus would be aligned.

But as it stands, in its present state, it's not.

(And to your earlier point, none of the motherboard manufacturers allow for the provision of getting a refund from their documented warranty policies. Fair would be if they actually allowed and enabled that. That is what would be fair. You write about "...isn't really fair to the company or anyone else." Where is the fairness to the customer? More importantly, why aren't you talking/writing about that. And/or why do you accept the fact that none of the motherboard manufacturers have a documented provision in their warranty policies which allows them to give a refund for a defective product for the entire duration of the warranty - 3 years? None of the motherboard manufacturers having the refund provision in their warranty policies is crap. Why would you accept crap?)

 

And also further to your statement: "...isn't really fair to the company or anyone else."

Are you arguing that it isn't fair to the company because I am documenting my experiences with their product for all to see and read about? Because to me, it sounds a LOT like rather than talking about what the COMPANY is doing, what you're talking about instead, is the person who found out what said company is doing. Why is the focus placed on the messenger rather than on the company?

 

That's not even REMOTELY CLOSE to being true and representative of the facts.

 

You can't just send the CPU back to Intel on day 1094 of ownership, claim that there's a problem with it, hoping you'll get a refund.

 

I don't know why you would make that up.

 

(It amazing what the brain will pass on as knowledge when a gap in knowledge exists.)

 

You have to be able to proof/provide the data and the evidence that abides by and is aligned to the documented warranty policy from Intel, which means that in order to be able to send it back for a refund, you would have to be able to provide documented data/evidence/proof that there is a problem with it in order to even QUALIFY for said refund; of which, refund is only one of THREE remedies available to said Intel (and by extension, to you.)

 

Your statement: "you just got a 3 year lease on a product for free" is patently false and is literally NOT what Intel's Boxed Processor Limited Warranty states.

I don't know why you would make stuff up like that, but there you have it.

(You want to talk about "fair" - if you want to talk about "fair", why would you make stuff up like that which you should know or ought to know that your statement is knowingly fraudulent misrepresentation (or at minimum, neglegent misrepresentation)? What's "fair" about you making stuff like that?)

Literally any platform will have faulty parts as its virtually impossible to catch every defective product during quality assurance so to have one faulty product and then draw the conclusion that the platform is inherently flawed is kinda crazy. And yeah if you kept the product for over 30 days then it's a fair assumption that you were satisfied with the product I. Those 30 days so if the product ended up being faulty and you got a working one then you would likely still be satisfied with the product afterwards. Also I'm sorry but there is a reason why all the manufacturers don't allow refunds as part of the warranty for obvious reasons. If it was a reasonable practice you would see more companies with those practices. 

[alpha754293]

On 4/11/2022 at 3:06 PM, freeagent said:

I’ve had good luck with Asus over the last 20 years or so. They have been my go to brand. Sorry to hear of your troubles.

They're a bit of a mixed bag for me.

From like 2000-2007-ish, their motherboards worked well for me.

And then from like 2008-ish or so, some of my then Asus motherboards started acting up and ancedotally, it seemed like that I wasn't the only one with issues with Asus motherboards, but I've been back to using Asus boards since maybe ca. 2015-ish timeframe (with my Core i7-3930K). (I don't really update my computers all that often and for quite some time, I was using Tyan motherboards instead.)

(In between that, I've tried Gigabyte and MSI for consumer boards and they're "ok" as well in that they function.)

 

And I know that statistically, the warranty failure rate (for motherboards), I would surmise, isn't super high to begin with, but what the warranty failure rate doesn't tell you is that if and/or when it fails, the degree of said failures.

 

On 4/11/2022 at 4:48 PM, Brooksie359 said:

Literally any platform will have faulty parts as its virtually impossible to catch every defective product during quality assurance so to have one faulty product and then draw the conclusion that the platform is inherently flawed is kinda crazy.

But it's not JUST one faulty product (that went into determining that there is a problem with the platform).

Did you even READ my post at all???

You are explicitly told that both the CPU (which I am guessing could be the on-die memory controller that may be faulty) PLUS the motherboard that results in my saying that the Z690 has a problem, or so it would appear.

Nowhere, in any of your replies, have you ever accounted for these facts.

And this is further implicated by the fact that I tested four DIMMs of RAM in my Ryzen 9 5950X/X570 system, spent 17 hours 9 minutes running memtest86 on that system, which it passed, BEFORE I took the memory out of that system and put it into the 12900K/Z690 system, where it then failed to run memtest86 to such a degree that it resulted in the video (where said 12900K/Z690 system spontaneously resetted itself).

 

You aren't anywhere remotely CLOSE to addressing these facts.

 

The platform is so bad that I can take WORKING DIMMs of RAM, transplant them from a WORKING system, and said Z690 platform/system can't even run memtest86 for TWENTY-SEVEN seconds, (according to memtest's own timer), as shown in the video.

 

So, no, it's not ONE faulty product.

 

It's TWO faulty product.

 

And the DEGREE that it has failed (if you have a system that can't even run memtest86 for TWENTY-SEVEN SECONDS, I'd say that's a pretty significant issue with the system/platform). it's quite literally an #epicfail.

Think about it this way: when was the last time you've had a system that CANNOT RUN memtest86 for TWENTY-SEVEN SECONDS? (The video was actually the SECOND time that it happened. It actually happend immediately prior to that and normally, you should NEVER expect a system to spontaneously reset itself, but it happened the first time, and that's what got me to take out my phone and record it on video (which I purposely recorded the entire boot sequence in order to show the mode of failure/what I'm seeing).

 

All of your excuses FAILS to account for why this happened in the first place and/or if this should be happening at all.

 

I don't really care that QA didn't catch it.

 

The video clearly shows "it happened".

 

Now the question is what is Asus going to do about the fact that it's happened and QA missed it.

 

Oh...and to your point about QA not being able to catch every defective product - that depends on two things: 1) Your QA regiment and 2) your sampling rate/sampling frequency.

As Steve from GamersNexus has shown, some companies DO test 100% of their products through their automated QA process. But if your QA process fails to catch a faulty product, is it because you aren't testing for that fault (either because you don't know that fault CAN exist or because you are making a conscious and deliberate decision NOT to test for that fault).

 

If they don't know, well, now they do (thanks to my reporting).

 

If they are making a conscious and deliberate chose NOT to test for this fault (usually due to time, which equals cost/money), then that's their bad/their problem.

 

Case in point: The 2009-2011 Toyota vehicle recalls totaled to around 16.2 million vehicles which were triggered by upto 37 deaths. This means that the number of deaths / total number of vehicles recalled is around 0.00023%, which, statistically speaking is generally insignificant. However, because they were deaths (i.e. the degree of the mode of failure), they garnered a LOT of public media attention and eventually, Toyota was found to be responsible for those deaths based in part, on the confidential Barr report. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–2011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls)

 

In other words, just because you didn't test for it, doesn't remove your liability should it fail.

 

And whilst a 12900K/Z690 not working isn't a life-or-death situation, but the fact of the matter is that it really is only going to be a matter of time before you will see this kind of processing power inside your car (if it isn't there already in a segregated manner with all of the various control modules that are in a modern vehicle). Therefore; today, it's just my computer not working. If that computer was in your car, it'd be the whole Toyota vehicle recall thing again.

 

Oh and by the way, Toyota settled the recalls for $1.1 BILLION.

 

On 4/11/2022 at 4:48 PM, Brooksie359 said:

And yeah if you kept the product for over 30 days then it's a fair assumption that you were satisfied with the product I

Based on WHAT?

 

Once again, you have failed to provide an answer to the question "why is 30 day the threshold for the customer acceptance criteria?" And perhaps more importantly, what are the assumptions you are making behind WHY you are picking 30 days instead of 90 days? Why not 180 days? Why 30 days?

You have failed to provide an answer in regards to this very basic and fundamental question.

 

If the ECU in your car died after 90 days, can I use your logic here and go "too bad. So sad. You passed the 30 day mark, so it must mean that you liked your brand new car."???

 

"...then it's a fair assumption that you were satisfied with the product"

That's an asinine assumption to make. On what grounds or basis are you making this assumption? You have failed to provide an answer in regards to this very simple and basic question.

As I have previously stated, the only way that you would assume this whole "30 day thing" that you seem to be on about, assumes that 30 day should be the length of time for the customer acceptance criteria without providing any data to say WHY 30 days should be the length of time for the customer acceptance criteria.

 

On 4/11/2022 at 4:48 PM, Brooksie359 said:

Those 30 days so if the product ended up being faulty and you got a working one then you would likely still be satisfied with the product afterwards.

Again....what is the basis and/or on what grounds are you basing this assumption off of???

 

This is an asinine assumption to make and you have failed to provide any supporting data/evidence that shows WHY 30 days should be the length of time for the customer acceptance criteria.

Or said in a slightly different way - why 30 days? Why not 60 days? Why not 90 days? Why not 180 days?

You are arbitrarily making the decision that "okay. 30 days is good (enough)" with NO data, NO evidence that you are using to base your decision off of.

 

That's insane to make such an arbitrary decision without any data nor evidence to back up the question "why 30 days?".

 

On 4/11/2022 at 4:48 PM, Brooksie359 said:

Also I'm sorry but there is a reason why all the manufacturers don't allow refunds as part of the warranty for obvious reasons. If it was a reasonable practice you would see more companies with those practices. 

Yes.

 

And the reason is money.

 

Their warranty policy is LITERALLY written which shows that they care more about money than they care about you as a customer.

 

It's ALL about money.

 

When they see you, they don't see you as a customer. They LITERALLY have the cartoon thing where their eyes turns into dollar signs.

 

You can have a high warranty annualized failure rate and still be popular, and make lots of money because what customers care about is that if there is a problem, what are you (as the company responsible for the manufacturing and sales of the product) going to do about dealing with such problems.

Case in point: Dell has like about a 26-27% failure rate. (Sources: https://www.ruggedmobilityforbusiness.com/2009/10/what-laptop-manufacturers-dont-want-you-to-know/, https://www.geckoandfly.com/6311/the-most-reliable-laptop-survey-best-netbook-reliability-comparison/)

And yet, despite this, so many businesses use Dell computers enough for Dell to make $94B in revenue for FY21.

 

So whereas motherboard manufacturers see warranty refunds as a negative (loss of money), Dell has seen and built their entire business model around, quite literally, fixing one out of every four product they make and sell AND they can remain highly profitable despite having one of the industry's highest failure rates.

 

Therefore; to your point about why companies don't offer refunds as a part of their warranty - it's literally because they care more about money than they do about keeping you as a customer.

 

If Asus had refunds as a part of their warranty policy, I would stick with Asus motherboard above all other motherboard OEMs because I know that if I have a problem with their products, I will be taken care of.

 

But alas, (and you still haven't answered why), you are literally arguing for their shitty behaviours and I can't really seem to figure out why (other than to surmise that you either work for them or you work with them via the supplier base or something).

 

Beyond that, I can't see why anybody would be defending a company's shitty warranty policy in an industry that ALL, collectively, have the same shitty warranty policy.

 

If Asus changed their warranty policy that they would offer refunds upto the entire duration of their warranty period, I would ONLY buy Asus (for consumer boards at least) from now on if that were the case.

 

But instead, you're here, defending their shitty policies and once again, having failed to provide an answer in regards to the question that I asked you "why do you tolerate a company's shitty warranty policy when you know it's shitty?"

[alpha754293]

Quick/brief update on this saga:

So, after about roughly a month of arguing with Asus, Asus agreed to replace my Asus Z690 Prime-P D4 motherboard with an Asus ROG STRIX X570-E GAMING WIFI II motherboard.

I actually originally requested the Asus X570 TUF Gaming Pro WiFi motherboard instead (because that's what my other Ryzen 9 5950X system was already using, so I know that I don't have any issues with that system), but they denied that request and instead, sent the more expensive motherboard as its replacement. By this point, I was just happy that they were sending ANY X570 motherboard as a replacement for the clearly defective Asus Z690 Prime-P D4.

 

Course, also by this point, I had also already filed a lawsuit against them in court, and was in the process of serving them the papers when they sent me the email with the replacement offer.

 

In my email exchange with them, I told them that if they couldn't find a resolution that we can mutually agree on, that I will have to pursue the matter in court, they said that due to the fact that I had indicated that I was looking into pursuing legal action, that the Asus Corporate Customer Care team was supposed to contact me, and to the best of my knowledge (or at least nobody whom I've been in contact with, has ever identified themselves as being from the Asus Corporate Customer Care team), so said Asus Corporate Customer Care Team never contacted me like they said they would/like they said they were supposed to.

 

I'm currently in the process of putting the new-to-me Asus ROG STRIX X570-E GAMING WIFI II through its paces, and checking for system stability issues.

 

But given my previous experience where I might not see the problems until approximately 3 months in service, so I am keeping my plaintiff's claim open as I have 6 months to serve them.

 

From a cost perspective, because they sent me a more expensive motherboard, I netted out being roughly even.

So....depending on the situation (as I still contend that the fact that the board was able to run memtest86 for almost 11 hours in one test, but less than 27 seconds in another), if you're willing to put in a little bit of time to research the laws and statutes in regards to consumer protection, and depending on your specific situation, you MIGHT actually be able to get a remedy if your motherboard catastrophically fails like this, and Asus (or any other motherboard manufacturer for that matter) refuses to issue a refund to you and you are outside of the refund window.

 

Doesn't necessarily mean that this would ALWAYS work.