ASUS Responds to AM5 Platform BIOS Controversy

Recent reports of sudden malfunctions involving Ryzen 7000X3D series processors have drawn considerable attention from tech enthusiasts, the issue stemming from the chipset voltage escalating to precarious levels. It has been discovered that ASUS clandestinely altered the AGESA code during a BIOS update, a modification that was not subjected to rigorous testing, thereby compelling the processor to operate within hazardous conditions. Moreover, ASUS failed to promptly alert its users when the issue surfaced, merely eradicating the older BIOS version from the support page and providing an update in its stead.

Asus x670E 192GB DDR5 memory

According to TomsHardware, usage of these compromised BIOS may result in motherboard damage, potentially voiding the warranty. ASUS’s handling of the situation drew a significant amount of criticism from users, the company merely suggesting that users “operate on default settings (disable AMD EXPO/DOCP)” on the AM5 motherboard. While the utilization of EXPO profile settings (including Intel XMP) is commonplace among users, it is technically regarded as overclocking and traditionally not covered within the warranty scope of the motherboard.

In response to the uproar, ASUS issued a statement, clarifying that the warranty for their AM5 motherboards extends not only to recent beta BIOS updates, but also includes AMD EXPO, Intel XMP, and ASUS’s proprietary DOCP memory presets. Furthermore, the most recent BIOS adhere to AMD’s recommended voltage settings. The specifics were as follows:

1. The ASUS AM5 motherboard warranty also covers all AMD EXPO, Intel XMP, and DOCP memory configurations.

2. All recent BIOS updates follow the latest AMD voltage guidelines for AMD Ryzen 7000 series processors.

Furthermore, we would like to reiterate our commitment to supporting the AMD AM5 platform and our customers. For any further inquiries about your ASUS AM5 motherboard, please contact our customer service for support.

Nevertheless, the incident sparked a substantial backlash among international users, who perceived the brand’s response as reactive due to mounting pressure, rather than an active and timely response.