https://forum.asrock.com/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Mon, 25 May 2026 11:51:31 +0000 Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:35:24 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.04 360 https://forum.asrock.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=113453 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_images/web_wiz_forums_black.png https://forum.asrock.com/ https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=113453&PID=200914&title=bios-version-naming-explained#200914 Author: Xaltar
Subject: 113453
Posted: 13 Feb 2026 at 5:35pm

BIOS revision numbers tend to follow in house naming conventions.

For example, 4.00 introduces a new AGESA version and microcode for new CPU support and serves as a bridge version.

4.01 is then the BIOS version that will be used.

4.03 introduces bug fixes/improved timings and voltages then

4.10 introduces another new AGESA code but not new microcode (new CPU support) then

5.01 introduces both a new AGESA as well as new CPU support.

Just an example but it illustrates the basic logic behind the naming. Skipping a number, like I skipped 4.02, is usually because multiple beta BIOSes were in development, often with different AGESA revisions (same version, different revisions) and the best one was chosen to make into a final release candidate. This is why we often see multiple numbers skipped. This applies to all manufacturers but the naming conventions will vary. It is worth noting that with ASRock X.00 is typically a bridge BIOS version with X.01 and onward being normal updates. Not every ?GESA version update requires a bridge BIOS version so we don't always see an X.00 version.


Hopefully this clarifies things a little.]]> Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:35:24 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=113453&PID=200914&title=bios-version-naming-explained#200914