# BIOS ROM Size Limitations Almost Derail AMD's Zen2 Backwards Compatibility Promise



## btarunr (Jul 8, 2019)

AMD succeeded in delivering on its backwards-compatibility promise for the 3rd generation Ryzen processors on motherboards based on AMD 300-series and 400-series chipsets. This promise was very close to being derailed suggests a community thread on MSI forums. According to MSI representatives active on the forum, the capacity of the SPI flash EEPROM chip that stores the motherboard UEFI firmware is woefully limited to cram in the AGESA ComboAM4 1.0.0.3a microcode on many of its motherboards. 

The company had to make several changes to its UEFI BIOS package that's currently being circulated as a "beta," to accommodate support for 3rd generation Ryzen processors along with AGESA ComboAM4 1.0.0.3a. First, it had to kick out support for A-series and Athlon processors based on the 28 nm "Bristol Ridge" silicon. Second, it had to [and this is a big one], kick the RAID module, breaking SATA RAID on many of its motherboards. Third, it had to replace its feature-rich Click BIOS 5 setup program with a barebones "GSE Lite" Click BIOS program, which lacks many of the features of the original program, and comes with a dull, low-resolution UI. This program still includes some essential MSI-exclusive features such as A-XMP (which translates Intel XMP profiles to AMD-compatible settings), Smart Fan, and M-Flash.






The scary part? Many other motherboard brands appear to be using 16-megabyte EEPROMs on their older socket AM4 motherboards. These companies are bound to run into similar ROM capacity issues unless they keep their UEFI setup programs lightweight. Motherboards based on the latest X570 chipset feature 32-megabyte EEPROMs. The AMD X570 chipset lacks support for not just "Bristol Ridge," but also first-generation Ryzen "Summit Ridge" and "Raven Ridge" processors.

We recommend that unless you literally possess a 3rd generation Ryzen processor, do not update the BIOS of your older socket AM4 motherboard. You may risk losing features and break your RAID volumes. Find out the latest version of BIOS that has the classic AGESA PinnaclePI 1.0.0.6 microcode, and use that instead.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 8, 2019)

I wonder if they could at all be bros and also include a non stripped down version for tweakers. Id happily dump the bios and swap to a bigger chip. I've done it several times anyway.


----------



## Bruno_O (Jul 8, 2019)

Very informative, thanks for the heads up. Now just need to check what's the BIOS update needed for the Win10 1903 May update with Ryzen improvements, while at the same time not taking the latest BIOS...


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 8, 2019)

Basically this means two things:
1. UEFI is bloated huge crap.
2. Motherboards manufacturers cheap on bios modules and use 16MB instead of 32MB.

I'm lucky and my x470 motherboard has 256Mb module which is 32MB, i just checked it right after reading this news. I've never been a fan of fancy GUIs in UEFI and i would assume these take a lot of space. I totally would prefer classic look with added mouse support for these who do not know how to use keyboard to navigate in bios.


----------



## RH92 (Jul 8, 2019)

Bruno_O said:


> Very informative, thanks for the heads up. Now just need to check what's the BIOS update needed for the Win10 1903 May update with Ryzen improvements, while at the same time not taking the latest BIOS...



I think you are confused , what you are reffering to are chipset drivers and that only works for 3000 series CPUs so if you don't have one of those there is no point to update bios nor the chipset drivers  .


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 8, 2019)

> Third, it had to replace its feature-rich Click BIOS 5 setup program with a barebones "GSE Lite" Click BIOS program, which lacks many of the features of the original program, the least of which is its dull, low-resolution UI.


It doesn't sound like they replaced any features besides... raid as previously mentioned? So saying they had to replace a 'feature rich' bios with something else really isn't true because seemingly all they did was they made it look like... it should? A bios isn't some sort of thing anyone should need to look great, it's a tool. I don't care what my hammer looks like, as long as it works, just like a bios/UEFI.

I guess the real question is, how much will the microcode make a difference? It's something that would be nice to see tested thoroughly. I mean, my X370 Taichi has support for Ryzen 3000 series and they straight up tell you on the specs on their site that the UEFI chip is 16MB.


----------



## Jism (Jul 8, 2019)

Bios, basic input output system. Not a graphical user interface, with mouse support, sounds, bells and graphics. 16megabit should be way more then enough if you skip all the fancy bells. Just keep it plain simple, lol.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 8, 2019)

I don't care. I got Zen 2 support.
To hell with RAID.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 8, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> To hell with RAID.


I forgot the B350 supported RAID. Has MSI posted a finalized UEFI update for your board since pulling the beta?

One of the first things I turn off is the splash screen so I can see what's going on during POST.


----------



## mechtech (Jul 8, 2019)

Indeed, mobo makers should have used 32MB for bios mem from day 1









						GA-AX370-Gaming K3 (rev. 1.0) Key Features | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global
					

Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...




					www.gigabyte.com
				




see bios version F30

"Note : Due to BIOS ROM size limited, no Bristol Ridge APU support."


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 8, 2019)

There is lengthy article about this on msi's support page and to be honest this looks bad, like really bad, it looks like they say to customer "the thing you purchased is crap so we have to workaround things like crazy to make it work at all with features that were supposed to be delivered properly".





__





						MSI  Global - The Leading Brand in High-end Gaming & Professional Creation
					

As a world leading gaming brand, MSI is the most trusted name in gaming and eSports. We stand by our principles of breakthroughs in design, and roll out the amazing gaming gear like motherboards, graphics cards, laptops and desktops.




					www.msi.com
				




Now i feel like i have to apologize anyone to who i recommended MSI x470 motherboards (as i recommended only x470 chipset boards in every case) because every time i recommended am4 motherboard i said this socket will offer compatibility with cpus released up to year 2020.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 8, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> I forgot the B350 supported RAID. Has MSI posted a finalized UEFI update for your board since pulling the beta?
> 
> One of the first things I turn off is the splash screen so I can see what's going on during POST.


Only the beta so far.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jul 8, 2019)

_Motherboard manufactures using the cheapest possible parts threaten future CPU support _
Not the least bit surprising


----------



## Totally (Jul 8, 2019)

Why not have a set of good BIOSes instead of one that is compromised? 1 for 1000/2000 CPUs and another for 3000 CPUs?


----------



## tony359 (Jul 8, 2019)

is this MSI only or does it apply to other manufacturers too?

I have an A320 MSI MB and I engaged into several conversations over the past months on these pages where I was told it was 'normal' to expect that such a cheap motherboard was not supported because of <put a reason here>. Someone also suggested that the mobo was not up to the electrical requirements for the Zen2 procs and that I shouldn't have saved those $10 and should have gone for a better model in the first place.

Now that MSI have released a BIOS for their A320s that support ALL Ryzen 3000 - and it's the same BIOS showing the same limitations that 'better and more expensive' motherboards have available - I think I'll do a bit of a Nelson and send those users a big 

*AH-HA! *


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 8, 2019)

Batou1986 said:


> _Motherboard manufactures using the cheapest possible parts threaten future CPU support _
> Not the least bit surprising


There is the BoM (Bill of Materials) angle when your producing X amount of motherboards. I would imagine the mobo manufacturers sell more mid/low-end boards vs high-end, and are not exactly raking in the money like the DRAM/NAND brand names have for how long the prices were up.


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 8, 2019)

tony359 said:


> is this MSI only or does it apply to other manufacturers too?
> 
> I have an A320 MSI MB and I engaged into several conversations over the past months on these pages where I was told it was 'normal' to expect that such a cheap motherboard was not supported because of <put a reason here>. Someone also suggested that the mobo was not up to the electrical requirements for the Zen2 procs and that I shouldn't have saved those $10 and should have gone for a better model in the first place.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. Personally i wouldn't recommend A320 chipset for anything more than an apu. Problem lies in size of eeprom module, some motherboards use 16MB but upgraded bios do not fit on these modules and manufacturers have to workaround this, for example by slashing off some features which is bad.

Problem is not isolated to just msi as for example, *EatingDirt,* here said his x370 taichi, which is high end motherboard also has 16MB module so Asrock will have to do something about it.

If you are going to use your a320 motherboard with ryzen cpus and msi somehow will add support for 3xxx and 4xxx series ryzen cpus do not expect them to work at their full capabilities anyway. They will be limited by limited bios and chipset features and also they will not have proper amounts of power delivered so for example if you will decide to use 3950x in that motherboard msi will optimize bios to deliver less power to it just to be able to make it work.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 8, 2019)

I'm just surprised they didn't foresee this, I thought this platform was planned to last for several cycles. It shouldn't be too hard to estimate the space required for firmware for several new CPU lineups.

Now, what about the CPUs coming in the next two-three years?


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 8, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> UEFI is bloated huge crap.



More like AGESA. In the Intel realm, that size would be absurd.  Heck, even for a UEFI module it's absurdly huge.  That's like a micro OS with a linux kernel, makes me wonder what AMD hides in there...  wonder how obfuscated it is, etc.



Totally said:


> Why not have a sets of good BIOS? 1 for 1000/2000 CPUs and another for 3000 CPUs?



I don't think AGESA can be de-encapsulated like that, or I'd certainly advise it.  Sadly it's just a bigass binary blob.


----------



## Crackong (Jul 9, 2019)

I don't see the problem with my 3700x currently sitting on my x370 MB.


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 9, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> More like AGESA. In the Intel realm, that size would be absurd.  Heck, even for a UEFI module it's absurdly huge.  That's like a micro OS with a linux kernel, makes me wonder what AMD hides in there...  wonder how obfuscated it is, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think AGESA can be de-encapsulated like that, or I'd certainly advise it.  Sadly it's just a bigass binary blob.


Well, seems like it is doable, they already did cut out support for some cpus and apus.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

This just hit today? I swear this was discussed months ago when back support was being discussed...seems. like they found a workaround but cuts off some features. Interesting.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Well, seems like it is doable, they already did cut out support for some cpus and apus.



Ah yes, missed that.  Must have some seperate builds from AMD I'm guessing?  I hope they can request more with other things cut then.

At any rate, *I* don't know how to de-encapsulate AGESA.  But manufacturers may have tools I lack.  I certainly hope so.



EarthDog said:


> This just hit today? I swear this was discussed months ago when back support was being discussed...



I had trouble believing it then but aparently, it's real.  'dat UEFI bloat....  I seriously want to take apart AGESA now and see what I can find.


----------



## tony359 (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Yes and no. Personally i wouldn't recommend A320 chipset for anything more than an apu. Problem lies in size of eeprom module, some motherboards use 16MB but upgraded bios do not fit on these modules and manufacturers have to workaround this, for example by slashing off some features which is bad.



That's never been my point. If AMD has added some new features which are not fully supported by older chipsets, I'm fine with that. But what I was being told was that "it is ok that your motherboard will not support Ryzen 3000 *because it's a cheap motherboard*". That has never made any sense and it's now fully disproved by facts. In fact, not only has the A320 received an update but the same limited update now applies to the "better 'because more expensive'" models.

I hope I do not sound too harsh but some users did sound a bit harsh on me in the past on this very subject.



efikkan said:


> I'm just surprised they didn't foresee this, I thought this platform was planned to last for several cycles. It shouldn't be too hard to estimate the space required for firmware for several new CPU lineups.



Exactly my thought. Considering the massive workaround to have this working, I have a feeling AMD may have imposed this to the manufacturer, probably from the beginning. Then I don't understand why they now have to use those weird workarounds. 
I have a feeling that something went wrong on AMD's side - maybe they were not expecting such a large code for the new CPU's.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Basically this means two things:
> 1. UEFI is bloated huge crap.
> 2. Motherboards manufacturers cheap on bios modules and use 16MB instead of 32MB.
> 
> I'm lucky and my x470 motherboard has 256Mb module which is 32MB, i just checked it right after reading this news. I've never been a fan of fancy GUIs in UEFI and i would assume these take a lot of space. I totally would prefer classic look with added mouse support for these who do not know how to use keyboard to navigate in bios.


I had a windows 95 machine years ago with mouse support in the BIOS. It's too many fancy looking backgrounds and the tables for control and support.


----------



## tony359 (Jul 9, 2019)

To be honest I’ve always thought that all that graphic on the BIOS was not necessary. I don’t mind a basic one as long as it has all the features I need. I don’t use RAID on my Ryzen but that would be a bummer. The MSI page doesn’t mention RAID missing though. Maybe it’s just the beta?


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 9, 2019)

tony359 said:


> To be honest I’ve always thought that all that graphic on the BIOS was not necessary. I don’t mind a basic one as long as it has all the features I need. I don’t use RAID on my Ryzen but that would be a bummer. The MSI page doesn’t mention RAID missing though. Maybe it’s just the beta?


It does:


> * If you already set RAID for your system, please don`t update these beta BIOS as they are not ready for raid function.


The way this sentence is written i would think they removed RAID support in beta bios but they MAY restore it in final builds.


----------



## Mamya3084 (Jul 9, 2019)

MSI hasn't even added support for my B450 motherboard. Was going to update the HTC PC with a 3700. 
Wonder if this will be an issue come time of the threadripper 3 release....


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 9, 2019)

I have an Olivetti Pentium MMX pc, with mouse support on BIOS, and that's not a 16MB BIOS chip.
I would prefer a de-bloated blue with white text UEFI but with full support for all AM4 chips than some stupid flashy UEFI.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jul 9, 2019)

Gigabyte also had to throw out Bristol Ridge support on the B350 and X370 i own.

X370 Gaming K5

AB350M D3H

I only have one Bristol Ridge, and it is an interesting CPU. But broken here and there. It is ok that they kick out support, only a handful of people used this cpu. And i can still run it on my Asus X370 if i like


----------



## Bitgod (Jul 9, 2019)

I had planned on using a MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC with a Zen 2 since that was a mobo that was largely favored the past few weeks for a cheap setup.  Now I'm on the fence on using it or returning it and getting a low-end X570.  Ugh.  On the one hand, the 570 would "just work".  On the other, I really don't want to go back to a time of having a small fan on the mobo.


----------



## turbogear (Jul 9, 2019)

This is really sad to see backwards compatibility limited and support for some CPUs being removed due to bios chip size. 

I checked on my ASUS C7H. Luckily my board has 32MB flash size.

Though to mention that the new bios from ASUS C7H is bugged. On 2406, the USB support is not working properly. None of the mice I have works inside the bios. 
Also have trouble with DOCP support for my 16GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB DDR4-3200 CL14.
I went back to 2304.


----------



## IceShroom (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Basically this means two things:
> 1. UEFI is bloated huge crap.
> 2. Motherboards manufacturers cheap on bios modules and use 16MB instead of 32MB.
> 
> I'm lucky and my x470 motherboard has 256Mb module which is 32MB, i just checked it right after reading this news. I've never been a fan of fancy GUIs in UEFI and i would assume these take a lot of space. I totally would prefer classic look with added mouse support for these who do not know how to use keyboard to navigate in bios.


Typecal mobo manufacture. Instead spending money on biger UEFI chip, they spend that money on RGB. Also mobo manufacturer need to clean up those flashy design and animation from URFI.


----------



## londiste (Jul 9, 2019)

Considering how widespread this is and that most 400-series motherboards come with a 32 MB chip this looks more like AMD not communicating the required size properly at first.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 9, 2019)

Re: those talking about price difference:

According to DigiKey, an 8-pin 128Mbit (16 MB) SPI flash ROM chip of the kind used on motherboards starts at $1.31 a piece when bought in bulk reels. A 256Mbit (32 MB) chip in the same form-factor costs $2.04 a piece. Motherboard makers have the bargaining power to bring those prices down even further. Even if not, they're literally 70 cents apart. Motherboard designers could have cut out some RGB crap to make room for a 256Mb chip. They probably wanted forced-obsolescence by telling AMD "it can't be done" when the time came, but failed at that when AMD replied "it can be done, just delete support for older processors and make your setup program smaller."


----------



## silentbogo (Jul 9, 2019)

I think they are trying to make a viable excuse to sell more boards. First of all, cheaping-out less than $1 on SPI flash is their fault, not ours or AMDs. Second of all, I very much doubt that fitting a 3200 byte section is such a big problem - AGESA microcode is already peppered over 3 different places in the firmware with latest updates (same for pretty much all manufacturers, cause copy-pasting requires no effort).


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2019)

efikkan said:


> I'm just surprised they didn't foresee this, I thought this platform was planned to last for several cycles. It shouldn't be too hard to estimate the space required for firmware for several new CPU lineups.
> 
> Now, what about the CPUs coming in the next two-three years?


The X570 boards only support Zen+ and Zen2. That should answer your question.

Now, if instead of UEFI anyone had the the wisdom to write a BIOS that sticks to its job... https://www.coreboot.org/


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Basically this means two things:
> 1. UEFI is bloated huge crap.
> 2. Motherboards manufacturers cheap on bios modules and use 16MB instead of 32MB.
> 
> I'm lucky and my x470 motherboard has 256Mb module which is 32MB, i just checked it right after reading this news. I've never been a fan of fancy GUIs in UEFI and i would assume these take a lot of space. I totally would prefer classic look with added mouse support for these who do not know how to use keyboard to navigate in bios.



1. You forget that we've gone from a VERY basic non graphical UI, to a clicky, flashy UI with UEFI, that takes up space, even more so when they went from 640x480 to 1080p or higher resolution in the UI for the UEFI. This takes up space. Most of the clicky, flashy parts aren't needed though, but they make it look nice and it makes it easier for people to do things in the UEFI, or so the board makers seem to think. I never use the mouse in the UEFI, as I find it harder.

2. Well, there's a cost difference, so low cost boards will use low cost parts, pretty logical, no?



bug said:


> The X570 boards only support Zen+ and Zen2. That should answer your question.
> 
> Now, if instead of UEFI anyone had the the wisdom to write a BIOS that sticks to its job... https://www.coreboot.org/



We're way past the point of no return for this, UEFI is here to stay and it's coming to embedded ARM devices too.
This is what has been decided by higher powers and as a user, we have no choice.
UEFI is supposed to be more secure, smarter and better, but I'm not sure this is really true...



btarunr said:


> Re: those talking about price difference:
> 
> According to DigiKey, an 8-pin 128Mbit (16 MB) SPI flash ROM chip of the kind used on motherboards starts at $1.31 a piece when bought in bulk reels. A 256Mbit (32 MB) chip in the same form-factor costs $2.04 a piece. Motherboard makers have the bargaining power to bring those prices down even further. Even if not, they're literally 70 cents apart. Motherboard designers could have cut out some RGB crap to make room for a 256Mb chip. They probably wanted forced-obsolescence by telling AMD "it can't be done" when the time came, but failed at that when AMD replied "it can be done, just delete support for older processors and make your setup program smaller."



Yes, but ramp this up to a million products and that's a million bucks someone could've pocketed...
This is what people in general forget when they talk component costs. This is also why companies try to save a cent on things, as it's all about the quantity, not the individual component cost.
You're absolutely right about the RGB crap though, as removing all the useless LEDs would most likely have saved even more money. But the LEDs are there for marketing purposes, no? More important that having a solid product that will last...



GoldenX said:


> I have an Olivetti Pentium MMX pc, with mouse support on BIOS, and that's not a 16MB BIOS chip.
> I would prefer a de-bloated blue with white text UEFI but with full support for all AM4 chips than some stupid flashy UEFI.



Urgh, Olivetti made the worst PCs...
The mouse BIOS was not unique to them though, it was actually found on a lot of boards.
What you miss though, is that it only worked with PS/2 and maybe serial mice, not USB mice.
It's not problem getting the blue and white UEFI though, it's actually common on a lot of non consumer devices that use UEFI, as well as most notebooks.













						Foundational Technology - AMI
					

Only AMI brings you this all-in-one approach to foundational technology, to ensure that your compute platforms get online, every single time.




					ami.com
				






Totally said:


> Why not have a set of good BIOSes instead of one that is compromised? 1 for 1000/2000 CPUs and another for 3000 CPUs?



It wouldn't quite work, as if you then want to go to the 3000-series, how would you go around updating the UEFI? Your older CPU would instantly not work with the board after you updated, which might cause some problems. But otherwise it makes sort of sense.


----------



## tony359 (Jul 9, 2019)

Totally said:


> Why not have a set of good BIOSes instead of one that is compromised? 1 for 1000/2000 CPUs and another for 3000 CPUs?



It'd be great but imagine then having to develop, update, test and release TWO sets of BIOS for each MB - and remember that those are free, we "paid" for them when we purchased the mobo.


----------



## londiste (Jul 9, 2019)

Two sets of BIOSes will require some type of dual-BIOS switching or Flashback functionalities to be reasonably useful. Getting a different supported CPU to get the BIOS upgraded on the motherboard you just purchased to support a CPU you also just purchased is annoying enough already, making this standard operating procedure is not a good idea.


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2019)

londiste said:


> Two sets of BIOSes will require some type of dual-BIOS switching or Flashback functionalities to be reasonably useful. Getting a different supported CPU to get the BIOS upgraded on the motherboard you just purchased to support a CPU you also just purchased is annoying enough already, making this standard operating procedure is not a good idea.


Worse, two sets of BIOSes will open you up to badmouthing because having to trade one feature for another. Not to mention lawyers will have a field day dragging you to court.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 9, 2019)

Steevo said:


> I had a windows 95 machine years ago with mouse support in the BIOS. It's too many fancy looking backgrounds and the tables for control and support.


You mean winbios?
It doesn't take many lines of assembly to implement basic mouse support.
But the fancy BIOS GUIs is beside the point, that's not the problem. The size of that bloatware should be known to the motherboard maker, the problem is when adding support for new CPUs needing new firmware, which grows every time there is a new lineup or even possibly if they expand the current lineup.



bug said:


> The X570 boards only support Zen+ and Zen2. That should answer your question.
> 
> Now, if instead of UEFI anyone had the the wisdom to write a BIOS that sticks to its job... https://www.coreboot.org/


Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought this platform was going to last longer.

I do like Coreboot, but I don't think it will gain any adoption. UEFI is a bloated piece of crap, but that's not the worst part of it; it's also a security nightmare. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out a way to break into it remotely.


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought this platform was going to last longer.


It's why I always took that with a grain of salt: despite AMD's best intentions, they simply cannot know the requirements of future CPUs. And neutering future CPUs for the sake of backwards compatibility would be even worse. So something's got to give.


efikkan said:


> I do like Coreboot, but I don't think it will gain any adoption.


I'm not hold my breath either. I was just pointing out there are still sane people at work, somewhere.


efikkan said:


> UEFI is a bloated piece of crap, but that's not the worst part of it; it's also a security nightmare. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out a way to break into it remotely.


Honestly, I'd be really surprised if interested parties haven't already


----------



## btarunr (Jul 9, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yes, but ramp this up to a million products and that's a million bucks someone could've pocketed...
> This is what people in general forget when they talk component costs. This is also why companies try to save a cent on things, as it's all about the quantity, not the individual component cost.
> You're absolutely right about the RGB crap though, as removing all the useless LEDs would most likely have saved even more money. But the LEDs are there for marketing purposes, no? More important that having a solid product that will last...


Yes, they chose RGB to market over spending $0.7 more on a better SPI chip. Guess what? Enthusiasts will now prefer those brands that chose 256Mb chips way back when designing their 300-series/400-series boards (eg: ASUS, ASRock), over brands that cheaped out (eg: MSI, GbT). Also, those buying a Zen2 processor with a brand new X470 chipset motherboard will avoid boards with 128Mb ROMs like cancer. I'm sure some based nerd on Reddit will compile a list of motherboards with ROM sizes to help others out.


----------



## tony359 (Jul 9, 2019)

btarunr said:


> I'm sure some based nerd on Reddit will compile a list of motherboards with ROM sizes to help others out.



Looking forward to that indeed.


----------



## hojnikb (Jul 9, 2019)

This is odd. Looking at my gigabyte B450M-DS3H, it has 16MB bios chip (according to bios bin file anyway) but seems to retain all the features even after updating to zen2 support.

Unless gigabyte forgot to mention that in their description (haven't tried the new bios yet).


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 9, 2019)

btarunr said:


> Yes, they chose RGB to market over spending $0.7 more on a better SPI chip. Guess what? Enthusiasts will now prefer those brands that chose 256Mb chips way back when designing their 300-series/400-series boards (eg: ASUS, ASRock), over brands that cheaped out (eg: MSI, GbT). Also, those buying a Zen2 processor with a brand new X470 chipset motherboard will avoid boards with 128Mb ROMs like cancer. I'm sure some based nerd on Reddit will compile a list of motherboards with ROM sizes to help others out.


Well, as already one user here mentioned his asrock x370 taichi which is asrock's high end motherboard of 3xx line up has 16MB chips too and i did check and can confirm, specification lists 16MB module. I'm lucky and x470 taichi has 32MB.


----------



## tony359 (Jul 9, 2019)

They seem to have forgotten to mention on BIOS 31 for the GA-AX370-Gaming K5 so I'd be tempted to think they forgot for yours as well - obviously I hope I am wrong!


----------



## londiste (Jul 9, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> Well, as already one user here mentioned his asrock x370 taichi which is asrock's high end motherboard of 3xx line up has 16MB chips too and i did check and can confirm, specification lists 16MB module. I'm lucky and x470 taichi has 32MB.


It is not lucky. BIOS flash chip being small was a big enough deal already when Zen+ came out, there was definitely a very clear push in getting 32MB chips to 400-series motherboards.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jul 9, 2019)

dont mean to literally crap on the entire thesis of this, but arent bios chips easily swapable?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> dont mean to literally crap on the entire thesis of this, but arent bios chips easily swapable?


On some boards you can drop new ones in, sure. That isn't close to a majority though. Most are soldered on the board.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jul 9, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> On some boards you can drop new ones in, sure. That isn't close to a majority though. Most are soldered on the board.


damn, i know my z97 board can, if people have a spare am4 dual bios board someone should attempt a mod, and then patch the uefi together for r_ 3000 support


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 9, 2019)

btarunr said:


> Yes, they chose RGB to market over spending $0.7 more on a better SPI chip. Guess what? Enthusiasts will now prefer those brands that chose 256Mb chips way back when designing their 300-series/400-series boards (eg: ASUS, ASRock), over brands that cheaped out (eg: MSI, GbT). Also, those buying a Zen2 processor with a brand new X470 chipset motherboard will avoid boards with 128Mb ROMs like cancer. I'm sure some based nerd on Reddit will compile a list of motherboards with ROM sizes to help others out.


I was thinking of buying either MSI B450M Bazooka Plus or AsRock B450M Steel Legend. But looks like both of them are 16MB bios chips. Even Tomahawk is only 16MB. I don't know what to choose any more.


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 9, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> I was thinking of buying either MSI B450M Bazooka Plus or AsRock B450M Steel Legend. But looks like both of them are 16MB bios chips. Even Tomahawk is only 16MB. I don't know what to choose any more.


If possible wait a bit more, save up a bit more cash and take any motherboard with 32MB eeprom.

I just checked and seems like all asrock's b450 matx motherboards are 16MB but Fatal1ty X470 Gaming-ITX/ac has 32MB module. Yes, i am aware it is itx so probably something what you are not interested in. All gigabyte's matx motherboards are 16MB. Another itx with 32MB is asus ROG STRIX B450-I GAMING. Biostar b450 and x470 matx boards have support for latest zen 2 and there is no info about anything removed from bios so i would assume these have 32MB but they do not list in specification eeprom sizes.


----------



## bug (Jul 9, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> I was thinking of buying either MSI B450M Bazooka Plus or AsRock B450M Steel Legend. But looks like both of them are 16MB bios chips. Even Tomahawk is only 16MB. I don't know what to choose any more.


I'd just wait for the B550 instead


----------



## Imsochobo (Jul 9, 2019)

I've always disliked the new bios crap.

Simple text menu's is my preference, drop mouse support while at it, make them speedy as they used to be!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 9, 2019)

The size doesn't even matter. They could make different versions that only support one or the other. Gee, maybe if every board had flashback, then it would be a nonissue 100%.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 9, 2019)

btarunr said:


> I'm sure some based nerd on Reddit will compile a list of motherboards with ROM sizes to help others out.


Yeah, that's already been done. It's not quite complete, but it contains almost all of the collected knowledge of AM4 motherboards on this planet...
Note that it might take a while to load that spreadsheet.


			https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wmsTYK9Z3-jUX5LGRoFnsZYZiW1pfiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/
		


Judging by that list, no 300-series chipset boards have more than 128Mbit.

Interestingly, that means my board only has 128Mbit, yet Asus still seems to claim support for all features...


----------



## Totally (Jul 9, 2019)

londiste said:


> Two sets of BIOSes will require some type of dual-BIOS switching or Flashback functionalities to be reasonably useful. Getting a different supported CPU to get the BIOS upgraded on the motherboard you just purchased to support a CPU you also just purchased is annoying enough already, making this standard operating procedure is not a good idea.



Most modern mb bios can be flashed without even powering a system on or even having a cpu in the socket.


----------



## Dwarden (Jul 9, 2019)

i wonder why the manufacturers can't simply make multiple BIOS branches
1. for APUs
- for first gen
- for second gen
2. for CPUs
- for first gen
- for second gen
- for third gen

if the ROM is too small then branching it like this is logical to save as much space as possible
while each of them could be it's own version

same for RAID, i remember times when some controllers and cards
had separated variants of with RAD and w/o RAID due to sizes

of course they could also get rid of theirs graphical logo and loading pictures bloat 

now i get the point of all-in-one being simple and risk free, but that does applies only if you got the ROM memory space


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 9, 2019)

btarunr said:


> Re: those talking about price difference:
> 
> According to DigiKey, an 8-pin 128Mbit (16 MB) SPI flash ROM chip of the kind used on motherboards starts at $1.31 a piece when bought in bulk reels. A 256Mbit (32 MB) chip in the same form-factor costs $2.04 a piece. Motherboard makers have the bargaining power to bring those prices down even further. Even if not, they're literally 70 cents apart. Motherboard designers could have cut out some RGB crap to make room for a 256Mb chip. They probably wanted forced-obsolescence by telling AMD "it can't be done" when the time came, but failed at that when AMD replied "it can be done, just delete support for older processors and make your setup program smaller."



No one was talking about price differences...

16MB roms are standard and fit nearly everything in the Intel realm (Microcode there is like...  in kb size realm).  I'm with others, this is more AMD not communicating how much AGESA would bloat.  It has nothing to do with pricing or any other grand conspiracy to make us upgrade...



efikkan said:


> UEFI is a bloated piece of crap



Not inherenetly, but in pratice, it can be.  It is however a security nightmare in 90% of implementations, yes.  Not that bios was any better though...


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jul 10, 2019)

this problem only effects msi and their bloated bioses. if you open any other bios image from say asus, asrock, or biostar youll find that there is plenty of empty space in those bioses. This article really only pertains to msi. everybody else is fine who does not own one of these boards. btw, everybody else uses 16mb roms too.


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 10, 2019)

Final_Fighter said:


> this problem only effects msi and their bloated bioses. if you open any other bios image from say asus, asrock, or biostar youll find that there is plenty of empty space in those bioses. This article really only pertains to msi. everybody else is fine who does not own one of these boards. btw, everybody else uses 16mb roms too.


No, gigabyte also removed support for older APUs but they didn't go that far and didn't remove as crucial functions as raid like msi did.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 10, 2019)

Final_Fighter said:


> this problem only effects msi and their bloated bioses. if you open any other bios image from say asus, asrock, or biostar youll find that there is plenty of empty space in those bioses. This article really only pertains to msi. everybody else is fine who does not own one of these boards. btw, everybody else uses 16mb roms too.



That explains why my gigabyte modding days on AM4 found space aplenty...



spectatorx said:


> No, gigabyte also removed support for older APUs but they didn't go that far and didn't remove as crucial functions as raid like msi did.



If true than the bloat got quite out of hand.  My Gigabyte Aorus X370 Gaming 5 had a lot of free space at launch.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jul 10, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> No, gigabyte also removed support for older APUs but they didn't go that far and didn't remove as crucial functions as raid like msi did.



i just looked at the gigabyte ab350m gamming 3 bioses from before 2nd gen support and now and there is enough space in the bios for them to have not needed to remove anything from it. i think its the manufactures being lazy and not wanting to restructure the bios for older boards. if gigabyte wants to add support back in later on then they should be able too. msi on the other hand needs an entirely new structured lightweight bios but that would cost money that they not willing to invest into an old platform.


----------



## Crackong (Jul 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yeah, that's already been done. It's not quite complete, but it contains almost all of the collected knowledge of AM4 motherboards on this planet...
> Note that it might take a while to load that spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> ...



Same here.
My ASUS x370-i listed in the spreadsheet having 128Mb Flash ROM, BIOS version 5008 running a 3700x so far so good.


----------



## Lorec (Jul 10, 2019)

TheLostSwede said:


> Yeah, that's already been done. It's not quite complete, but it contains almost all of the collected knowledge of AM4 motherboards on this planet...
> Note that it might take a while to load that spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> ...


A god no less prepared that spreadsheet...


----------



## zlobby (Jul 10, 2019)

All this so manufacturers can save 3c per board... The greed, man!


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 10, 2019)

zlobby said:


> All this so manufacturers can save 3c per board... The greed, man!



No, no, you got it wrong. It's so they can spend that money on RGB LEDs, as it's a far more important feature...


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 10, 2019)

Lorec said:


> A god no less prepared that spreadsheet...


According to that spreadsheet even not all x570 are using 32MB modules and many of them have 16MB... That's bad. And some of them are not cheap.


----------



## bug (Jul 10, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> According to that spreadsheet even not all x570 are using 32MB modules and many of them have 16MB... That's bad. And some of them are not cheap.


But the X570 does not need support for the original Zen


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 10, 2019)

bug said:


> But the X570 does not need support for the original Zen


What do you mean by that? As far as i am aware x570 has compatibility from latest ryzen 3xxx series down to first ryzen cpus.


----------



## bug (Jul 10, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> What do you mean by that? As far as i am aware x570 has compatibility from latest ryzen 3xxx series down to first ryzen cpus.


Nope. Look it up on AMD's website: only Zen+ and Zen2 are supported.


----------



## spectatorx (Jul 10, 2019)

bug said:


> Nope. Look it up on AMD's website: only Zen+ and Zen2 are supported.


Ok, you are right indeed:


			https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/x570


----------



## evilhf (Jul 10, 2019)

I have the msi x370 gaming pro carbon.
last week had released a bios and then updated with my old cpu 1600x 1600x.
worked perfectly with the 1600x until then.
But the following week this bios was removed!
Now I sold my 1600x r5 and bought the 3900x r9, I'm waiting to arrive.
In bios says the following

This BIOS fixes the following problem of the previous version:
- Update AMD ComboPI1.0.0.1
- Support new upcoming AMD cpu.

So my new cpu will work or at least post so that I can upgrade to newer bios?


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jul 10, 2019)

I would assume so evilhf. It was a beta bios, which was removed, right? A buddy of mine saw that as well for a B350 board from MSI.
Just checked the MSI website, the latest bios for this board is from January 23rd of 2019???

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/X370-GAMING-PRO-CARBON#down-bios

Just got my 3700X, and now AMD has just gone mad. Reasonable price for such a CPU, and a totally capable cooler is included? I am just impressed 
Even when Intel will catch up, i wonder when they will include a fitting cooler for the CPU? They did for the i7 980 six-core, and then it was even with a premium price.

Sorry guys for going off topic here, just couldn't help myself


----------



## nemesis.ie (Jul 11, 2019)

Aorus Extreme X570 with a 128Mbit chip? That seems rather short-sighted.

@evilhf Yes, should be good to go with 1.0.0.1. I sure hope so as I am running that on my TCU and should be popping in the 3900X tomorrow.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jul 11, 2019)

@evilhv there is currently a beta bios available at the MSI website for your board


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 11, 2019)

@GoldenX
MSI has a BIOS update posted for my B350 Gaming Pro so you might want to check again for your board.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 11, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> @GoldenX
> MSI has a BIOS update posted for my B350 Gaming Pro so you might want to check again for your board.
> View attachment 126636


Seems to be the same on the blog MSI posted, but now they properly report it.
Good to know they promise a next one with RAID support.

I kinda like the non-stupid lite UI, I might just update to get that.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 11, 2019)

The Hardware Monitor Interface is sure plain looking now.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 11, 2019)

Meh, the point and click fan curve was a pain, too imprecise.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 11, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> I kinda like the non-stupid lite UI, I might just update to get that.


You too? I honestly prefer it this way.

Edit: Ran into this issue involving Task Manger unable to report reserved memory. Technically there is 16,384 MB installed I can see 16,336 MB through Performance Monitor which means there is RAM being reserved by the mobo firmware. Before the update it use to report 47.7 MB inaccessible.


----------



## Uchchwas (Aug 14, 2019)

Is it effect on performance? Like overcloking?? I don't need rich user interface.
I planning to buy MSI b450 gaming pro carbon.
Should i buy this now?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2019)

Uchchwas said:


> Is it effect on performance? Like overcloking?? I don't need rich user interface.
> I planning to buy MSI b450 gaming pro carbon.
> Should i buy this now?


Nope.


----------



## tony359 (Aug 14, 2019)

just curious: "nope" to both questions?


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 14, 2019)

Correct.


----------



## Bitgod (Sep 3, 2019)

Had zero problems with my 3600 and B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC.  In general, Ryzen 2 doesn't strike me as a CPU to OC anyway, too much hassle for little gain.


----------



## grigo (Oct 13, 2019)

I am not sure how AGESA fits into BIOS, but my experience has been somewhat confusing. I have an Asus Prime X370-A board. I updated the BIOS before installing a 3900X. RAID BIOS didn't start. I panicked and  tried to downgrade the BIOS as low as I could. But downgrading to the lowest version that supported 3900X didn't bring the RAID back. So, I put back the old 1800X and tried downgrading further. EZ Flasher wouldn't let me though. So after some serious searching I found an unofficial method to get even lower with the BIOS version. RAID BIOS got back. I was relieved. I started upgrading the BIOS back to see where RAID BIOS would stop loading. It never did. I got back up to the latest version and RAID was still there. I thought my problem was just that I skipped something like 5 BIOS versions when I did my first BIOS update to support the new CPU. But then I put back the 3900X and the RAID was gone again. That's when I realised that the problem only manifested when the new processor was put in. With the latest version still I put back the old processor, RAID was back. So as weird as it may seem, this is NOT a BIOS chip size limitation. It's with the memory allocated for the BIOS when it loads. If someone has a better explanation, I'm ready to hear it. But this looks more like the programming of the BIOS, not its size.
In the end I have to say I hate AMD RAID. I've had it for many years as a convenience and an additional data protection method but it's a real pain in the ass when you have to migrate it. And nobody seems to support it out of the box. I had a motherboard with 780G chipset before. I could not migrate the VD from the old RAID to the new RAID, although they are both AMD. I had to backup all the data, create the RAID, copy the data back. Same now.
I bought a separate PCIe SATA controller with a Marvell chip and moved my disks there for RAID. Didn't have to install anything, it just worked. With AMD RAID I had to figure out that I needed two drivers to make it work, installed in a specific order, otherwise even Windows 10 won't see the disks. No live linux distro would ever boot with AMD RAID, all panicked. In a way I am glad I was forced out of using it. I don't know why they never bothered to make drivers easily available for all OSes.


----------

