ASUS G614FR notebook issues (AMD); BSOD and random reboots. Switch to Intel-version, or even MSI?


Recommended Posts

For two weeks I have a new ASUS notebook (ASUS ROG Strix G16 G614FR-S5251W) after a previous G614FR died on me.
It has the same specs (AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, 5070Ti GPU and all that).

Yesterday I got this image as well as random reboots & restarts (while browsing Brave, or zooming in on a regular photo, editing a Word document or finding some stuff out in Claude).
I already used DDU for uninstalling all nvidia related drivers, and now have the "hotfix" version 596.02 installed. The previous version 595.97 also gave random reboots.

This is not good.

Is something definitely off with this ASUS/AMD notebook?
I am still in my no-questions-asked return period from the webshop I bought this. Should I return this in, and go for the ASUS Intel version of this model ( G615LP) with Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and the 'regular' GeForce RTX 5070 GPU).

And/or... in case I really need more power I can switch to my GeForceNow Ultimate subscription.

image.thumb.png.281a587a9aa1152dc9b886d586405150.png

  • kiddingguy changed the title to ASUS G614FR notebook issues (AMD); BSOD and random reboots. Switch to Intel-version, or even MSI?
On 12/04/2026 at 12:06, Steven P. said:

Have you made sure to install all of the ASUS drivers for the laptop, and maybe checked for a BIOS update?

Yes. Latest BIOS (307) is installed, with all latest drivers (updated from MyASUS and Armoury Crate), as well as nvidia's from their own site.

I asked Claude, and it came with.

And it doesn't sound promising...

 

G614FR (AMD + RTX 5070 Ti) — Known Issues
Yes, the G614FR has documented stability problems. Users have reported screen glitches (distortion on the upper quarter of the display), frequent freezes on low loads, crashes and reboots when waking from standby (roughly 70–80% of the time), and occasional boot freezes lasting up to 10 minutes — all persisting even after clean Windows installs and full driver/BIOS updates. Asus Some affected owners ended up having to return the unit for RMA.
A closely related AMD model, the G614PR, had constant random crashes from games or BSODs with various error codes, persisting across different Windows versions, RAM configurations, and BIOS versions. Asus For that model, a new BIOS update released in late August 2025 (version 307) resolved the crashing for at least some users, while others found that rolling back to ASUS's own validated NVIDIA driver (576.65 rather than newer versions) helped significantly. Asus

The Broader ASUS ROG BIOS/Firmware Issue (Affects Both Models)
Both the G614FR and G615 are caught up in a wider, well-documented ASUS ROG problem. The root cause was traced to a systemic BIOS firmware flaw: ACPI interrupt storms causing improper power cycling of the discrete GPU, leading to DPC latency spikes (1000µs+) that bottleneck a single CPU core, resulting in system-wide lag, audio crackling, and frame drops. Loadsyn
LatencyMon tests on different ASUS ROG laptops confirmed the lag was being caused by ACPI.sys, but only on a single core. The investigation also found the system repeatedly attempting to power the discrete GPU on and off every 15–30 seconds, even when it's supposed to be permanently active. PC Gamer
ASUS acknowledged the issue in September 2025 and began rolling out beta BIOS updates, initially for select 2023 models (Strix Scar 15 and Zephyrus M16), with more models to follow. Tom's Hardware As of December 2025, the original periodic ACPI/DPC stall was confirmed fixed via an updated ASUS UEFI that rewrites the ACPI ECLV routine, removing the sleep/self-rearm behavior that caused the problem. GitHub

Posted (edited)

 

On 12/04/2026 at 12:56, Steven P. said:

Ahh in that case looks like you need to do a return.

Looks more and more like it...

 

Is the G615LP-S5088W (Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX) with 5070 be an option?
It has at least more BIOS updates since the 307 from my AMD-version [2025/08/15]

Or should I stay away from ASUS ROG Strix notebooks in general, and look for another gaming brand like Gigabyte or MSI?

I'd personally go with another brand, but that's just me. As you had a lot of trouble with ASUS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Buy better (more reliable) laptops - look at your brand choices.  Don't get me wrong, a product sold for a purpose should fulfil that purpose, and that's on them.  But sticking with these brands is clearly not serving you well.

On 13/04/2026 at 12:56, Nik Louch said:

Buy better (more reliable) laptops - look at your brand choices.  Don't get me wrong, a product sold for a purpose should fulfil that purpose, and that's on them.  But sticking with these brands is clearly not serving you well.

So what’s a good brand for gaming- and affordable? (I’m looking less than $2800/€2800)

Preferably with decent CPU, GPU and preferably 2 TB NVMe.

Posted (edited)

I am looking, as alternative, at the Gigabyte AORUS Master 16 (BYHC5EEE64SP) or MSI Raider 16 Max HX B2WI.

However, these are far over my initial willing-to-spend-on-a-gaming-notebook (around € 3300, so a spend-increase of about 35-40%). Yikes.

 

... on the Intel based model (Asus RS G615FR), someone posted "Stay with ASUS and try the 275HX alternative, the design is much better than the competition for the same equivalent".

What to do?! :ermm:

ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI - sorry fella, I just wouldn’t buy laptops from those brands. This may be 100% my sitch but I see them as trashy brands for laptops. Components sure but I tend to buy Lenovo. But that said, I’m not a gamer :)

On 13/04/2026 at 23:24, Nik Louch said:

ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI - sorry fella, I just wouldn’t buy laptops from those brands. This may be 100% my sitch but I see them as trashy brands for laptops. Components sure but I tend to buy Lenovo. But that said, I’m not a gamer :)

Kinda funny. I try to stay away from Lenovo.

They had very poor notebooks back in my days when I wsa building machines. And it got stuck in my head.

Maybe they've improved their (build)quality and internals drastically, but that's something I missed, blocked, didn't notice or have registered :huh:

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!