Using an Asus X99 Motherboard will maybe lose the Warranty of your CPU

[Enderman]

I mean, eventually it will due to entropy, but yeah they should never fail under normal usage.

They should never fail in the 3 years that they are covered by warranty. After that it doesn't really matter if they have been in a modified motherboard or not, because you won't be getting a replacement either way

[brownninja97]

Yet another reason why i never recommend asus motherboards, time and time again they prove to do stupid things, maybe they should even try to improve their failure rate or customer service, those are things which let down asus.

[patrickjp93]

Yet another reason why i never recommend asus motherboards, time and time again they prove to do stupid things, maybe they should even try to improve their failure rate or customer service, those are things which let down asus.

Their failure rate is no worse than Gigabyte or MSI on the average of all their products. Every company makes one board now and again that refuses to let its bugs be resolved, but that is every company at least on one board in a generation.

 

That said, Asrock did break off of them because of their crappy customer service.

[brownninja97]

Their failure rate is no worse than Gigabyte or MSI on the average of all their products. Every company makes one board now and again that refuses to let its bugs be resolved, but that is every company at least on one board in a generation.

 

That said, Asrock did break off of them because of their crappy customer service.

wrong, for a number of years their failure has become worse then asrocks, i believe it was three years ago due to a due seating issue which is odd became its happened three years in a row for asus, i remember because i did a thread on it last year. it might only be 0.2% between asus and asrock but still it makes a different, then there is my bad luck with asus, ive had four of their products break on me, their customer service likes to delay things, to the point where one time i had to wait 2 months for the rma of a gt 640 passive from asus. The other three times took over two weeks which is not good enough, also one of the guys on the other end from asus told me to fuck off when i questioned him on why one of the H61 boards wasnt being rmaed.

 

Im not sure if its facts or bad luck but until i see an improve in the numbers i will not buy an asus product, its fine for something to break if its your pc but i have a business, if something breaks i get shit for it, as a result ill stick with gigabyte or msi as they have lower failure rates and far superior customer services. I like the asus makes however i just cant trust them, im not a person that takes risks if there is no need for one to be taken.

[Derangel]

Their failure rate is no worse than Gigabyte or MSI on the average of all their products. Every company makes one board now and again that refuses to let its bugs be resolved, but that is every company at least on one board in a generation.

 

That said, Asrock did break off of them because of their crappy customer service.

 

AsRock didn't "break off" from ASUS. ASUS spun them off in an attempt to compete with Foxconn in the OEM market. Failing that AsRock was bought by Pegatron shortly before ASUS spun them off into their own entity.

[Me1z]

*Asus thinks outside the box and adds feature to benefit overclockers and enthusiasts*

 

*Overclockers and enthusiasts angry because the added performance doesn't come with Intel's blessing*

 

 

What's wrong with you hypocrites? You demand innovation and better products out of mobo manufacturers and when they deliver, you completely denounce them. If you really want Intel's "approval" go buy a mainstream cpu with a locked multiplier and have fun with your factory approved performance. LGA 2011 and X99 are not for average joe who wants to try building his first computer, they are designed for enthusiasts who are willing to push boundaries and take risks in pursuit of squeezing every last drop of performance out of their already insanely overkill rigs. Starting with the very first overclockers, Intel never has and never will approve of the enthusiasts who desire the performance they deserve rather than what Intel wants to sell them. Those of you trying to rub Asus' name in the dirt over this are an absolute disgrace. Intel has screwed over enthusiasts time and time again, and on the one occasion that we are given the tools to finally flip off old man intel, you have the nerve to be angry with Asus for not asking Intel's permission before smacking them in the face. Remember Haswell, remember Intel's empty promises to enthusiasts and then think real hard about who's approval you're asking for. </rant>

[Derangel]

wrong, for a number of years their failure has become worse then asrocks, i believe it was three years ago due to a due seating issue which is odd became its happened three years in a row for asus, i remember because i did a thread on it last year. it might only be 0.2% between asus and asrock but still it makes a different, then there is my bad luck with asus, ive had four of their products break on me, their customer service likes to delay things, to the point where one time i had to wait 2 months for the rma of a gt 640 passive from asus. The other three times took over two weeks which is not good enough, also one of the guys on the other end from asus told me to fuck off when i questioned him on why one of the H61 boards wasnt being rmaed.

 

Im not sure if its facts or bad luck but until i see an improve in the numbers i will not buy an asus product, its fine for something to break if its your pc but i have a business, if something breaks i get shit for it, as a result ill stick with gigabyte or msi as they have lower failure rates and far superior customer services. I like the asus makes however i just cant trust them, im not a person that takes risks if there is no need for one to be taken.

 

AsRock's failure rate was horrendous for a while. Their boards were extremely low quality with thin PCBs and lacking features. As for ASUS, like every manufacture they have ups and downs. If you look around you can find quality horror stories for EVERY major brand. Gigabyte went through a few years with VERY sketchy boards, MSI has always been a roller coaster, for over a year every single motherboard EVGA released was shit, etc. ASUS is BY FAR the largest enthusiast motherboard manufacturer on the planet (Foxconn and Pegatron of course beat them over-all, but their products are mostly lower-end OEM stuff) so that accounts for a bit of them being more common. If ASUS board quality was really that bad compared to everyone else they wouldn't show up as often in people's builds. On the low end everyone is hit or miss when it comes to their boards while on the higher end for the most part they're all pretty decent. Support seems like a crap shoot these days too, sadly. ASUS' CS is still ass but I've seen some rather troubling reports from people about MSI's support lately too. A big problem with ASUS support is the RMA facility they use in the US. It's bad, it's always been bad, and it will always be bad. It's apparently the same company EVGA goes through which explains their refurb issues as well.

[patrickjp93]

AsRock didn't "break off" from ASUS. ASUS spun them off in an attempt to compete with Foxconn in the OEM market. Failing that AsRock was bought by Pegatron shortly before ASUS spun them off into their own entity.

That is half the story. Asrock broke from ASUS completely before Pegatron bought them for exactly the reasons I mentioned. They needed capital and Pegatron gave it to them.

[patrickjp93]

*Asus thinks outside the box and adds feature to benefit overclockers and enthusiasts*

 

*Overclockers and enthusiasts angry because the added performance doesn't come with Intel's blessing*

 

 

What's wrong with you hypocrites? You demand innovation and better products out of mobo manufacturers and when they deliver, you completely denounce them. If you really want Intel's "approval" go buy a mainstream cpu with a locked multiplier and have fun with your factory approved performance. LGA 2011 and X99 are not for average joe who wants to try building his first computer, they are designed for enthusiasts who are willing to push boundaries and take risks in pursuit of squeezing every last drop of performance out of their already insanely overkill rigs. Starting with the very first overclockers, Intel never has and never will approve of the enthusiasts who desire the performance they deserve rather than what Intel wants to sell them. Those of you trying to rub Asus' name in the dirt over this are an absolute disgrace. Intel has screwed over enthusiasts time and time again, and on the one occasion that we are given the tools to finally flip off old man intel, you have the nerve to be angry with Asus for not asking Intel's permission before smacking them in the face. Remember Haswell, remember Intel's empty promises to enthusiasts and then think real hard about who's approval you're asking for. </rant>

Intel has no reason to cater to the enthusiast market other than to eke out just a bit more profit. Enthusiasts are a tiny, tiny portion of the computing market and are the last ones on Intel's list of sub-markets to target. In order: corporate desk and mobile, HPC/scientific computing/servers, consumer mobile, phones (they are fighting like mad to break into that market), consumer desktop, independent professionals (hence E3/5 Xeons), and lastly enthusiasts. That is the hierarchy of mass profit for them and thus the order in which they craft their products (releases being just out of order due to the need to have massive amounts of highly-binned Xeons available for the HPC crowd).

 

Don't get mad at Intel for doing intelligent business. Make yourselves a bigger market or deal with your lot. And now AMD is doing exactly the same thing as they try to break into HPC.

[brownninja97]

AsRock's failure rate was horrendous for a while. Their boards were extremely low quality with thin PCBs and lacking features. As for ASUS, like every manufacture they have ups and downs. If you look around you can find quality horror stories for EVERY major brand. Gigabyte went through a few years with VERY sketchy boards, MSI has always been a roller coaster, for over a year every single motherboard EVGA released was shit, etc. ASUS is BY FAR the largest enthusiast motherboard manufacturer on the planet (Foxconn and Pegatron of course beat them over-all, but their products are mostly lower-end OEM stuff) so that accounts for a bit of them being more common. If ASUS board quality was really that bad compared to everyone else they wouldn't show up as often in people's builds. On the low end everyone is hit or miss when it comes to their boards while on the higher end for the most part they're all pretty decent. Support seems like a crap shoot these days too, sadly. ASUS' CS is still ass but I've seen some rather troubling reports from people about MSI's support lately too. A big problem with ASUS support is the RMA facility they use in the US. It's bad, it's always been bad, and it will always be bad. It's apparently the same company EVGA goes through which explains their refurb issues as well.

its no longer a by far situation, last year gigabyte sold merely 100,000 less boards then asus, sounds like a large number but in the grand scheme gigabyte has exploded in terms of sales. asus has remained so large because they have an excellent pr and marketing department. people know the asus name before you know the gigabyte name or the msi name. A large majority of people are likely to buy asus because of how much other people have them, now the tides are changing, gigabyte and msi even asrock are boasting about how robust their screening systems are in the last two years and the results show.  The asus rma department in the uk is very bad as well.

[Me1z]

Intel has no reason to cater to the enthusiast market other than to eke out just a bit more profit. Enthusiasts are a tiny, tiny portion of the computing market and are the last ones on Intel's list of sub-markets to target. In order: corporate desk and mobile, HPC/scientific computing/servers, consumer mobile, phones (they are fighting like mad to break into that market), consumer desktop, independent professionals (hence E3/5 Xeons), and lastly enthusiasts. That is the hierarchy of mass profit for them and thus the order in which they craft their products (releases being just out of order due to the need to have massive amounts of highly-binned Xeons available for the HPC crowd).

 

Don't get mad at Intel for doing intelligent business. Make yourselves a bigger market or deal with your lot. And now AMD is doing exactly the same thing as they try to break into HPC.

 

Intel's "intelligent business" is precisely why I'm mad. Intel has no real competitor in the enthusiast market, our options are to accept what Intel thinks we should have or to use an archaic AMD CPU with extra gigglehertz that doesn't even come close to Intel's current gen CPUs. And Intel knows this. They know that they can jerk us around and we will still buy whatever products they scrape together for us. Ultimately, we don't matter to Intel, but we are dependent on them. Intel will abuse this relationship for as long as it continues. It's up to us to take the victories where we can, so the more ways to gain performance that Intel did not account for and doesn't want us to use, the better. Even if these pins only allow for an extra 1% increase in performance, that's still one percent weaker that Broadwell will be on average when compared to Haswell, and one percent of performance that Intel will have to compensate for when they try to convince us to buy Broadwell CPUs.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Asus should have really checked with Intel before hand. 

[Ren]

Yay, now I can be happy that I'm a Gigabyte fanboy.

[Techhog]

*Asus thinks outside the box and adds feature to benefit overclockers and enthusiasts*

 

*Overclockers and enthusiasts angry because the added performance doesn't come with Intel's blessing*

 

 

What's wrong with you hypocrites? You demand innovation and better products out of mobo manufacturers and when they deliver, you completely denounce them. If you really want Intel's "approval" go buy a mainstream cpu with a locked multiplier and have fun with your factory approved performance. LGA 2011 and X99 are not for average joe who wants to try building his first computer, they are designed for enthusiasts who are willing to push boundaries and take risks in pursuit of squeezing every last drop of performance out of their already insanely overkill rigs. Starting with the very first overclockers, Intel never has and never will approve of the enthusiasts who desire the performance they deserve rather than what Intel wants to sell them. Those of you trying to rub Asus' name in the dirt over this are an absolute disgrace. Intel has screwed over enthusiasts time and time again, and on the one occasion that we are given the tools to finally flip off old man intel, you have the nerve to be angry with Asus for not asking Intel's permission before smacking them in the face. Remember Haswell, remember Intel's empty promises to enthusiasts and then think real hard about who's approval you're asking for. </rant>

The problem is that not everyone wants to buy a $1000 CPU with no warranty.

[Me1z]

The problem is that not everyone wants to buy a $1000 CPU with no warranty.

 

And not everyone has to, that's the great part about this. If you're the type of person who would willingly give up your warranty in pursuit of extra performance, then congrats Asus now offers you just that. If you'd rather keep the warranty on your CPU and lose the potential performance increase then don't buy a motherboard that has the extra pins. There's no reason to bash Asus for providing a beneficial feature that you happen to not be interested in. You don't burn down a museum for displaying a painting you don't like, you walk away and let everyone else enjoy the museum because there will be people who like that painting. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean no one should have the option.

[patrickjp93]

Intel's "intelligent business" is precisely why I'm mad. Intel has no real competitor in the enthusiast market, our options are to accept what Intel thinks we should have or to use an archaic AMD CPU with extra gigglehertz that doesn't even come close to Intel's current gen CPUs. And Intel knows this. They know that they can jerk us around and we will still buy whatever products they scrape together for us. Ultimately, we don't matter to Intel, but we are dependent on them. Intel will abuse this relationship for as long as it continues. It's up to us to take the victories where we can, so the more ways to gain performance that Intel did not account for and doesn't want us to use, the better. Even if these pins only allow for an extra 1% increase in performance, that's still one percent weaker that Broadwell will be on average when compared to Haswell, and one percent of performance that Intel will have to compensate for when they try to convince us to buy Broadwell CPUs.

You really think Haswell is a poor architecture? IvyBridge had 3 ALUs per core, Haswell has 4, hence the heat due to all the extra control logic they had to add around it. That's a crap ton of more computational power even if the IPC gain was small. Devs just need to use SIMD instructions more, parallelize more. Blame the devs, not Intel. Intel has delivered a product more powerful than anything on earth previously by a longshot, but a tool is only as good as one can use it.

 

And Intel never expects people to upgrade with each generation. They know it will be 2 minimum before people upgrade. I had a Q9550 until the 4960X. I will have that 4960X at least until Skylake if not Cannonlake, and at that point I expect iGPU on the enthusiast end for its cheap computational power, much though that will piss off you enthusiasts who want to overclock so much. We're against a wall in electrophysics and the over clocking headroom decreases with every process shrink. Intel also already has an IPC of .83, very near the perfect ceiling of 1.

 

You need to understand that no one can defy physics and no one can draw blood from a rock. 5% IPC increase each generation will lead to perfection by the successor to Cannonlake, which means Intel has to either add more exotic instructions which devs will take 5 years minimum to program for, or it has to become increasingly parallel and heterogeneous, which it is doing. At this point your beef should be with developers, not Intel.

[Techhog]

You really think Haswell is a poor architecture? IvyBridge had 3 ALUs per core, Haswell has 4, hence the heat due to all the extra control logic they had to add around it. That's a crap ton of more computational power even if the IPC gain was small. Devs just need to use SIMD instructions more, parallelize more. Blame the devs, not Intel. Intel has delivered a product more powerful than anything on earth previously by a longshot, but a tool is only as good as one can use it.

 

And Intel never expects people to upgrade with each generation. They know it will be 2 minimum before people upgrade. I had a Q9550 until the 4960X. I will have that 4960X at least until Skylake if not Cannonlake, and at that point I expect iGPU on the enthusiast end for its cheap computational power, much though that will piss off you enthusiasts who want to overclock so much. We're against a wall in electrophysics and the over clocking headroom decreases with every process shrink. Intel also already has an IPC of .83, very near the perfect ceiling of 1.

 

You need to understand that no one can defy physics and no one can draw blood from a rock. 5% IPC increase each generation will lead to perfection by the successor to Cannonlake, which means Intel has to either add more exotic instructions which devs will take 5 years minimum to program for, or it has to become increasingly parallel and heterogeneous, which it is doing. At this point your beef should be with developers, not Intel.

Ticks don't give a 5% increase. More like 2-3%.

[patrickjp93]

Ticks don't give a 5% increase. More like 2-3%.

SB -> IB 5%, HW -> BW is confirmed 5% increase as well, with the most notable being the floating point multiply÷ instructions moving from 5 cycles to 3 which is HUGE on the scientific computing side being a 40% improvement on throughput.

[Techhog]

SB -> IB 5%, HW -> BW is confirmed 5% increase as well, with the most notable being the floating point multiply÷ instructions moving from 5 cycles to 3 which is HUGE on the scientific computing side being a 40% improvement on throughput.

Because Intel never exaggerates performance gains...

[Me1z]

You really think Haswell is a poor architecture? IvyBridge had 3 ALUs per core, Haswell has 4, hence the heat due to all the extra control logic they had to add around it. That's a crap ton of more computational power even if the IPC gain was small. Devs just need to use SIMD instructions more, parallelize more. Blame the devs, not Intel. Intel has delivered a product more powerful than anything on earth previously by a longshot, but a tool is only as good as one can use it.

 

And Intel never expects people to upgrade with each generation. They know it will be 2 minimum before people upgrade. I had a Q9550 until the 4960X. I will have that 4960X at least until Skylake if not Cannonlake, and at that point I expect iGPU on the enthusiast end for its cheap computational power, much though that will piss off you enthusiasts who want to overclock so much. We're against a wall in electrophysics and the over clocking headroom decreases with every process shrink. Intel also already has an IPC of .83, very near the perfect ceiling of 1.

 

You need to understand that no one can defy physics and no one can draw blood from a rock. 5% IPC increase each generation will lead to perfection by the successor to Cannonlake, which means Intel has to either add more exotic instructions which devs will take 5 years minimum to program for, or it has to become increasingly parallel and heterogeneous, which it is doing. At this point your beef should be with developers, not Intel.

 

I'm not saying that the Haswell architecture is bad, I'm saying the Haswell line of CPUs had more potential. A great example is the 4670k and the 4770k, why was devil's canyon even necessary? Because Intel cheaped out the first time and they knew they could hit us up a second time with empty promises of better overclocking. I honestly would not be surprised if Haswell still has more potential that is being artificially held back.

 

I never stated nor implied that Intel expects us to upgrade every generation. The point I made was that if Broadwell needs to have an extra performance boost to compensate for the extra performance we gain now, then Skylake and Cannonlake will need to do the same. One percent can make all the difference to consumers. A new processor that has reviews of a 10% performance increase over the previous generation is quite a bit more appealing than reports of a 9% increase. That extra percent can be the determining factor in whether or not people hold out for another generation before upgrading.

 

As for whom I should and shouldn't have beef with, there's a long list including both developers and Intel. I do partially agree, if developers had started optimizing programs for multi-core processors sooner, AMD might still be in the game giving enthusiasts a fighting chance. But this still does not excuse Intel's actions completely. Screw Intel for toying with enthusiasts and having a near monopoly and screw developers for letting them. Happy? 

[Derangel]

its no longer a by far situation, last year gigabyte sold merely 100,000 less boards then asus, sounds like a large number but in the grand scheme gigabyte has exploded in terms of sales. asus has remained so large because they have an excellent pr and marketing department. people know the asus name before you know the gigabyte name or the msi name. A large majority of people are likely to buy asus because of how much other people have them, now the tides are changing, gigabyte and msi even asrock are boasting about how robust their screening systems are in the last two years and the results show.  The asus rma department in the uk is very bad as well.

 

It's gotten that close? Wow, good for Gigabyte. They've been on a roll with their enthusiast grade boards the last couple years. Well, really that roll started when they stopped releasing rainbow colored boards and put some actual effort into aesthetics and improving their software package. I've had a few Gigabyte boards in the last 11 years (Hard to believe the nF2 chipset is that old) and there has been some major improvements over that time.

[patrickjp93]

Because Intel never exaggerates performance gains...

That's independent reviews.

[Mooshi]

GG

 

It's not like there are other top tier board makers one can easily switch to that'd give the same performance...oh wait.

 

Now that smaller boards actually have some competition, you actually have non Asus options for high end SFF builds.

[Techhog]

That's independent reviews.

There are no Broadwell reviews.

[patrickjp93]

There are no Broadwell reviews.

Wrong. I've posted one in fact by Tom's Hardware on Core M.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-14nm-broadwell-y-core-m,3904-2.html

 

The caveat is the reviewers didn't get to view anything in the control panel or use independent software, but several programs were used to show the performance increases from Haswell-Y to Broadwell-Y on equal core counts and clock speeds. Graphics power was not shown and on that front only basic statistics were provided and claims were made regarding micro architecture changes leading to much greater geometry, Z, and pixel output.