BETA BIOS Release for Ryzen 3000 Series Processors

[emersonyang]

Update: You can get more BIOS through the link below.

https://www.msi.com/blog/the-latest-bios-for-amd-300-400-series-motherboard


Beta BIOS of 300- and 400-series AM4 motherboards for coming Ryzen 3000 processors are releasing. They will be posted when they are available.

Until then, there is no need to post asking about when, there's no need to message moderators about when. We will provide all the source when ready at the first time.

Notice:

1.This BIOS doesn't support Bristol Ridge CPU.
2.If you already set RAID for your system, please don`t update these beta BIOS as they are not ready for raid function.
3.After download this BIOS, please unzip the BIOS file and copy it to the root folder of your USB pen drive. Then go to bios setup and choose M-Flash to update bios.
4.Support 3000 series CPU,
Ryzen 9 3900X/Ryzen 7 3800X/Ryzen 7 3700X/Ryzen 5 3600X/Ryzen 5 3600/Ryzen 5 3400G/Ryzen 3 3200G

In order to support AMD Ryzen 3000 series CPU, GSE-Lite Bios Interface need to be modified in order to release more space to fit the current CPU code.

GSE-Lite BIOS UI,

Update: You can get more BIOS through the link below.

https://www.msi.com/blog/the-latest-bios-for-amd-300-400-series-motherboard

 

[darkhawk]

Cool! so "As reviewer/overclocer" you have any idea why the 1.96 BETA bios for msi meg X570 ACE is taken off the download page and what was actually going on with that bios ???

There's only been a few times that BIOS's have generally been pulled (by MSI anyway).....

Usually it involves AMD screwing up their own AGESA code.....

 

[darkhawk]

As a reviewer / overclocker yes I do end up spending a fair bit of time in the UEFI (yes UEFI, not BIOS, wrong terminology. UEFI = Unified Extensible Firmware Interface, BIOS = Basic Input Output System). I don't need or expect the UEFI UI to look fantastic but there is a certain level of effort that should be put in rather than the sub-standard stock UI and when you can do it using the same amount of ROM space as the stock UI that just shows how little effort / care MSI put in here.

And for your information, a UEFI is still a BIOS. Like it or not, we just don't call it a BIOS, but it still has the same low level functions and coding.....It still provides the basic input output system that a BIOS does, but doesn't have the same limitations.

It's like how the Ford Ka, Fiat 500, Fiat Uno, Lancia Ypsilon, and Fiat Panda all use the same base platform, but were all unique cars that had distinct differences in them. 

At the end of the day, you can call it whatever you want. But when you go to download an update, I guarantee you don't download a UEFI, you download a BIOS.

[attachthumb=1]

 

[heky]

So now all beta BIOS versions of x570 boards have been pulled. Anyone know what that is about? I also have the very long boot problem, but since i run 24/7, it doesn't affect me that much. Other than that, the performance of the latest beta bios, with the Agesas v2 1.0.0.2 is very good. Voltage behaviour is better than all the available stable releases.

 

[bizketxxx]

Cool! so "As reviewer/overclocer" you have any idea why the 1.96 BETA bios for msi meg X570 ACE is taken off the download page and what was actually going on with that bios ???

I do not, but the most common reasons are where the firmware is about to leave beta stages or a problem was found with it that needs fixing.

 

[bizketxxx]

And for your information, a UEFI is still a BIOS. Like it or not, we just don't call it a BIOS, but it still has the same low level functions and coding.....It still provides the basic input output system that a BIOS does, but doesn't have the same limitations.

It's like how the Ford Ka, Fiat 500, Fiat Uno, Lancia Ypsilon, and Fiat Panda all use the same base platform, but were all unique cars that had distinct differences in them.

At the end of the day, you can call it whatever you want. But when you go to download an update, I guarantee you don't download a UEFI, you download a BIOS.

[attachthumb=1]

And by your own explanation you just have explained exactly why the term "BIOS" is the wrong terminology to now use. The UEFI provides the same basic functions while also providing extended capabilities beyond that -  64bit code rather than 16bit, hence the new terminology, UEFI. "BIOS" has just stuck because it is more familiar / widely known term not because it is still the correct terminology to use.

EDIT: In simple terms strictly speaking "BIOS" would refer to the portion of the firmware that is still only 16bit code while "UEFI" is the new term to encompass that 16bit code and the extended capabilities that are in 64bit code. Hence the "U" (Unified) in "UEFI".

 

[darkhawk]

And by your own explanation you just have explained exactly why the term "BIOS" is the wrong terminology to now use. The UEFI provides the same basic functions while also providing extended capabilities beyond that -  64bit code rather than 16bit, hence the new terminology, UEFI. "BIOS" has just stuck because it is more familiar / widely known term not because it is still the correct terminology to use.

EDIT: In simple terms strictly speaking "BIOS" would refer to the portion of the firmware that is still only 16bit code while "UEFI" is the new term to encompass that 16bit code and the extended capabilities that are in 64bit code. Hence the "U" (Unified) in "UEFI".

Either a UEFI is a BIOS or it's not. If it's not, then it doesn't provide the basic input/output functionality. :shrug: Pretty sure that makes it a BIOS. 

Say what you want, call it what you want, even if it provides more functionality, it's base function is still the same. 
We didn't stop calling jet's "airplanes" just because they went faster and used a different type of engine. Same applies here. Still a BIOS, no matter how you want to force incorrect terms down everyone's throats. And I would probably counter that your own terminology actually shows it isn't, even by the name......but that's a discussion for when you've actually read up on UEFI and how it functions.

But glad to see you admitted it is a BIOS too.

 

[heky]

New Beta versions are back online. The long boot bug has been fixed, at least for my board. Running very stable for me,

 

[DarkOmenX]

Agree! new 1.98 for msi MEG X570 ACE works perfectly fine , boot time is not only fixed but improved ,fastest boot so far .
No RAID issues either everything went perfectly smooth as it should be .

 

[bizketxxx]

Either a UEFI is a BIOS or it's not. If it's not, then it doesn't provide the basic input/output functionality. :shrug: Pretty sure that makes it a BIOS.

Say what you want, call it what you want, even if it provides more functionality, it's base function is still the same.
We didn't stop calling jet's "airplanes" just because they went faster and used a different type of engine. Same applies here. Still a BIOS, no matter how you want to force incorrect terms down everyone's throats. And I would probably counter that your own terminology actually shows it isn't, even by the name......but that's a discussion for when you've actually read up on UEFI and how it functions.

But glad to see you admitted it is a BIOS too.

A UEFI contains the same basic BIOS functions (again, hence the "U" for Unified), but unlike a basic BIOS the UEFI has functionality far exceeding what the BIOS could ever hope to do (such as not being limited to 16-bit processor mode or being limited to have to execute in only 1MB of space). I'm one of the guys that dissect, modify, and rebuild firmwares on win-raid I would have thought my showing what can be done with the X470 GPC firmware would have been an indication I know what I'm doing, so yeah.. we're all pretty up on these things over there and know what the differences are between a BIOS and UEFI thus know when which term should be applied its 101 stuff.

I'd suggest you >>Read This<< to learn the less technical differences between a BIOS and UEFI but if thats TLDR, snippet from the article; n 2007, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and PC manufacturers agreed on a new Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) specification. This is an industry-wide standard managed by the Unified Extended Firmware Interface Forum, and isn?t solely driven by Intel. UEFI support was introduced to Windows with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows 7. The vast majority of computers you can buy today now use UEFI rather than a traditional BIOS..

EDIT: Or just start reading that linked article from the heading How UEFI Replaces and Improves on the BIOS.

 

[darkhawk]

A UEFI contains the same basic BIOS functions (again, hence the "U" for Unified), but unlike a basic BIOS the UEFI has functionality far exceeding what the BIOS could ever hope to do (such as not being limited to 16-bit processor mode or being limited to have to execute in only 1MB of space). I'm one of the guys that dissect, modify, and rebuild firmwares on win-raid I would have thought my showing what can be done with the X470 GPC firmware would have been an indication I know what I'm doing, so yeah.. we're all pretty up on these things over there and know what the differences are between a BIOS and UEFI thus know when which term should be applied its 101 stuff.

I'd suggest you >>Read This<< to learn the less technical differences between a BIOS and UEFI but if thats TLDR, snippet from the article; n 2007, Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and PC manufacturers agreed on a new Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) specification. This is an industry-wide standard managed by the Unified Extended Firmware Interface Forum, and isn?t solely driven by Intel. UEFI support was introduced to Windows with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows 7. The vast majority of computers you can buy today now use UEFI rather than a traditional BIOS..

EDIT: Or just start reading that linked article from the heading How UEFI Replaces and Improves on the BIOS.

As you still just don't understand it, let's put it simply.
It still functions the same. Your links even quote that. If it exceeds it? Great. So do jets, they exceeded turbo props and prop based airplanes a long time ago. They're still airplanes.
Same applies here. You can change the name as much as you like. In the end, it still provides the same thing. Something you still seem to be unable to grasp.
All you focus on is the UI and 'exceeding functionality'. All I've focused on is what it does. It's always done the same thing. That's what a BIOS does. You can make it look pretty, call it a UEFI to sound technical. But in the end, it's functionality (we're not talking the fun UI here...never was...but you've focused on that, not me) is the same.

Lastly, you're welcome to do whatever you'd like. Building BIOS? Great. Good for you. I can't talk about what I do. (hint I don't work for MSI)

Lastly, See : >>Please read and comply with the Forum Rules.<<

 

[steven@nullabletype.co.uk]

Not sure if this is right place to report bugs? But had a pretty annoying one with 7C35v198(Beta version) for my MEG X570 ACE.

Noticed occasionally on cold boot, the one CCD on my 3900x was stuck at 600mhz where the other was free to boost to 4.6ghz as normal. This made windows super sluggish with 6 out of the 12 cores barely doing anything. If I went into the power plans in windows and switched between any of them it instantly fixed the issue. Also, rebooting seemed to fix the issue.

I downgraded back to 7C35v18 and the problem appears to of gone away, at least for the last week and a half I've not seen this issue again.

If I need to report this another way please let me know, or if anyone else has seen this would be interesting to hear.

 

[darkhawk]

Not sure if this is right place to report bugs? But had a pretty annoying one with 7C35v198(Beta version) for my MEG X570 ACE.

Noticed occasionally on cold boot, the one CCD on my 3900x was stuck at 600mhz where the other was free to boost to 4.6ghz as normal. This made windows super sluggish with 6 out of the 12 cores barely doing anything. If I went into the power plans in windows and switched between any of them it instantly fixed the issue. Also, rebooting seemed to fix the issue.

I downgraded back to 7C35v18 and the problem appears to of gone away, at least for the last week and a half I've not seen this issue again.

If I need to report this another way please let me know, or if anyone else has seen this would be interesting to hear.

So here's my general advice in regards to AMD systems......

Once you find a BIOS that works the way you want.....don't upgrade. AMD is constantly screwing up their own BIOS code, and all the users just keep thinking each new version must be better, or improve things, or make it 50% faster, or whatever. 
Stick to the mantra, if it works, don't screw with it. You'll be much happier in the long run.

Here's a perfect example of AMD doing what they do......With the newest BIOS versions, they removed CnQ and changed the name to something else. No notice to anyone else. Even MSI wasn't very forthcoming regarding information around it at first. It seemed like even they (MSI) didn't know it was changed until questioned.....and this isn't the first time something like that has happened. 

So if 7C35V18 works well, stick to that and I wouldn't worry or bother upgrading the BIOS until you have a NEED to upgrade it.

 

[jerbae]

People here seem pretty knowledgeable about this stuff, so here I go (input welcome!):

Got a bug to report with the new 7C84v141(Beta version) bios for X570 Tomahawk Wifi.
At POST-checks, it lists my attached drives (2 SSD's, 2 HDD's - the M2 drives are not mentioned here anyway) twice. Once in a completely wrong port-drive combination, and after that it's correct.

BIOS and Windows see the drives as singular and attached, so I think it's a POST screen reporting error - but it *is* confusing.
Downgraded back to latest stable version (1.30, from last month), where I can confirm this problem does not occur.

The correct configuration for when I took this photograph is:

• Port 3: WDC WD20 (2 TB HDD)
• Port 4: WDC WD10 (1 TB HDD)
• Port 5: Samsung SSD
• Port 6: Crucial CT1000 SSD

But as you can see, the first listing is wrong.
It seems like the first detect is incorrect, and the routine "corrects" itself in the end, which is probably why it doesn't impact system functionality.

I've checked sata cables, even shuffled a few connections around, tried with fewer disks, but the result is always the same: every disk attached is listed twice. Sometimes wrongly at first, but then correct.

Edit: Someone else confirmed this happening here.