What are you on?
>If you're used to slapping in name-brand memory to a board and booting it up[...]
Yeah, I am and that's exactly what I did with a new Ryzen CPU. How is this shit the top comment?
back
1 comments
Mobo makers are hiding behind their QVL rather than making a functioning product. "Sorry, we only tested this version of Crucial memory, not that version." Never mind the fact that they use the same in-house Crucial stuff underneath, changes are largely chip packaging, etc. Almost all of the memory on the market comes from one of the last 5 companies actually making DRAM (not counting Shenzen specials). Anything from Crucial, Samsung, Hynix, etc should work. It's JEDEC DDR4 compatible. Period. Hiding a bad product because a DIMM isn't on the QVL is low-class.
I'm not even talking about XMP stuff. I'm talking about booting with basic 2400/2666 stuff. "Yeah that's good RAM but not on our QVL. Get bent."
>Mobo makers are hiding behind their QVL rather than making a functioning product.
How do you go from, "one particular mobo from one manufacturer is bad" to "all mobo makers are bad" and you attribute some sneaky malicious motive behind this.
That's too much anecdote and emotional spin for me.
I'm saying the AMD chipsets are bad, the mobo manufacturers don't really do anything different from each other these days, and they're hiding behind the very few parts that they qualify for their boards. If the RAM comes from a brand name, it should work in the motherboard regardless of QVL.
Don't get these problems on AMD server/workstation platforms. You don't get them anywhere on Intel. But hey, the main article here also gave the nod to Intel in chipset/driver so I must just be all emotional spin.