Search results

I've done that and posted gigabyte's support replies here in this thread. They said everything is ok. I haven't bothered anymore, I just use my computer instead of check hw monitoring programs all the time.

Why buy anything at all? Despite the PRD value everything runs in spec and works fine.

I've used ZenTimings but I haven't had it for some time. Downloaded it again and ran it but inpout driver wasn't accessed by doing that.

HWiNFO touches it indirectly then for some reason.

Hi. I'm not sure which application has installed it and what it does exactly but what I see is that every time I open HWiNFO this driver's "Accessed" time/date gets updated. Does HWiNFO install this driver or what's it for?

Gigabyte Support: Our RD team had confirmed that our MB followed AMD standard to get and fill the data in BIOS. AMD doesn’t say HWinfo Power Reporting Deviation is accurate...

It’s still ongoing. And the more people report this issue the better.

We're in the same boat. We both have B550 Aorus Elite v2 boards and our PRD is the same.

According to https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B550-AORUS-ELITE-V2-rev-10/support#support-cpu the CPU is supported since the very first BIOS version. CM Hyper 212 cooler. It's not anything magical but still better than stock. ~35C idle temps. Full load is ~80C. With accurate power reporting...

I got 3600XT. The reason why I'm in talks with Gigabyte is the high temps due to inaccurate power reporting.

~67/0,67 basically so 100W. Pure stock.

Latest stable, yes.

68-70%

Ok. We'll see where my support case with them ends up. I doubt that they'll do anything regarding my board's biased PRD until many people complain but we'll see.

Maybe you have a statement from AMD where they say that HWinfo is accurate? Otherwise motherboard vendors can just say that there's no confirmation from AMD that PRD is valid or accurate at all and we, the users, don't have anything to say against that.

I think my wording might be misleading. They said that in the article AMD stated that the deviation reporting in HWinfo is inaccurate. Anyway I replied to them saying that AMD didn't state that in the article and that their screenshot doesn't show anything because the processor wasn't under full...

Their support linked me the following article where AMD supposedly stated that the reading is inaccurate: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-burnout-amd-board-power-cheats-may-shorten-cpu-lifespan Only that AMD didn't state that anywhere in that article.

I think their weird data is that 462,2%. But looking at the screenshot CB is not running so the system is not under full load.

I asked them them that and now waiting for their reply.