trsttteIt's almost like huge GPU's the PCIe standard was never designed for are not a good idea ;)

trsttteIt's almost like huge GPU's the PCIe standard was never designed for are not a good idea ;)



Any connector has a limited number of cycles before it fails, it can be in the dozens or the thousands but it will fail eventually. I don't know what's the number for a PCIe, given it's made of bare traces on a pcb I would say it's not that high.

Does ASUS mechanism accelerate the connector degradation? It's a legitimate question, but so is to question if the damage was done by heavier use than normal.

edit: the PCI Express Card Electromechanical Specification revision 3.0 from 2013 specifies 50 mating cycles. Not surprising to see damage after 60 cycles then regardless of the ASUS mechanism

NiceumemuThis is, as far as I can tell, a specification for the connector on the motherboard which has the spring loaded contact elements which you can reasonably expect to lose their spring force with enough cycles, and not the fingers on the PCB of the add-in card. If you can quote the language where it specifies though where it clearly mentions the life cycle for the add-in board that'd be great.

NiceumemuThis is ignoring the point that the damage wasn't done to the connection traces anyway and instead was done directly to the PCB. Again, if the damage was being done to the motherboard then that's more acceptable to me but the fact that it's the motherboard's own connector causing damage to a third party product is very worrying as, again, good luck getting either party to honour any warranties

trsttteIt's the PCI Express Card Electromechanical specification

trsttteLooks like someone trying to stir up and pile on drama about a company that's a juicy target at the moment because of other issues

NiceumemuThe slot is also part of the specification is it not? This doesn't clarify it at all for me.

NiceumemuWhat other issues? This just looks like consumer advocacy to me - I don't see how this is drama at all

trsttteNot this specific document, it's mentioned a bunch where needed of course, but it's focused on the cards. I mean just go look up the document, this revision 3 from 2013 is one of the first google results, there's new versions but i'm not paying for access as it's of no use to me.

trsttteAsus always seems involved in one controversy or another, the last thing I remember was the ROG Ally problems and the warranty support refusal. For it to be consumer advocacy it would need to happen on regular use, after taking the card out a couple of times. After 60? Nah, damage is kind of expected, do the same on a regular board and you're likely getting the same friction damage on the pcb fiberglass.

DigitalDudeWho puts and takes out the GPU 60 times!!

NiceumemuI don't understand this viewpoint of defending ASUS because this is an irregular use case or different from your use case. There is no harm in bringing this issue up and having ASUS create a fix to anybody but shareholders (and as a consumer you shouldn't care about them before your own interests). Furthermore, this type of problem could easily show up after only a couple of uses as it's reported that the card was difficult to remove due to the design and perhaps that was the cause of the damage, not the repeated uses.

There's also the major issue that it isn't the mobo being damaged but the GPU, have fun trying to get warranty coverage on the GPU when it's a different item causing damage to it - the mobo's warranty doesn't cover other items that it damages.


?? "So I have had to remove graphics cards from the slot a few dozen times. This didn't always go smoothly and very often the (GeForce RTX 5090) card got stuck in the slot."

BeermotorI'll use a simple analogy.

If you bend a wire coat hanger ninety-degrees for sixty times in a row it will break. This is not a normal use-case and usually most people accept this isn't how wire coat hangers are supposed to be used.

We still bend them into odd shapes because they're useful for all kind so things other than hanging up clothing.

That doesn't mean the manufacturer or designer of wire coat hangers is somehow negligent.