AMD Blocks/Disables Overclocking the Memory for the Radeon R9 Fury X

[Lays]

I worded it wrong. I clarified in an edit in my post. If your GPU fries and you say that you overclocked, you are not going to have a warranty no matter what the actual cause is. (Lightning is an exception though.)

 

I have a friend that fried a capacitor with a custom BIOS on a 780, he told them he was using it for folding and one day smelled a burning smell, they RMA'd it right away and sent him a new one awhile later.

If you fry it overclocking, why even tell them that's what happened? Just say you were playing games or using it for a certain task, and you smelled something funny lol.

 

The thing is, you're not going to fry it overclocking with the limits they put on the BIOS + Card itself, unless something on the card was faulty to begin with. (IE: bad solder joint or a faulty cap / VRM etc.)  They have so many safety features in place on cards these days that they're at very low risk to have any problems from overclocking.

 

 

Sure if you physically remove the resistors, use a custom BIOS + software to control the voltage controller they would void your warranty, but simply sliding a few sliders in afterburner on the stock BIOS isn't going to void anything.

[Notional]

Are you a fan of Richard Huddy or something? No one has confirmed anything he's said.

 

I'm not a fan of anyone. CDPR and Nvidia themselves have proved that AMD does not have access to GameWorks, and thus cannot optimize, which is further supported by an Ex valve programmer. What is up with your smear campaign of this man? At least be constructive and give examples of what he did/say that is incorrect.

[Guest Kloaked]

I'm not a fan of anyone. CDPR and Nvidia themselves have proved that AMD does not have access to GameWorks, and thus cannot optimize, which is further supported by an Ex valve programmer. What is up with your smear campaign of this man? At least be constructive and give examples of what he did/say that is incorrect.

 

Lol, here we go again.

 

They can optimize for the games, they just can't use the effect.

[Notional]

Lol, here we go again.

 

They can optimize for the games, they just can't use the effect.

 

No one has ever claimed otherwise. But nice try shifting the goal post.

[Guest Kloaked]

No one has ever claimed otherwise. But nice try shifting the goal post.

 

Yeah, so you're mad that AMD can't use Nvidia's effects. Tough stuff.

[Castdeath97]

And here we go again, gosh I hate this forum...

[patrickjp93]

Weird, when Nvidia blocked overclocking on laptops you said "Another reason to hate Nvidia", but now you're trying to make overclocking compared to making your car go faster? Come on man...

 

I would say this is more significant. Overclocking on laptops is not exactly a good idea to begin with, while this is advertised as being very good at overclocking and comes with water cooling out of the box etc.

 

 

 

 

Just some of my scattered thoughts on this:

 

Blocking overclocking on a desktop GPU (especially an enthusiast card) is a shitty move. It's not the core but half locked down is worse than fully unlocked.

 

We don't know how well it performs out of the box yet. Hopefully it will be good but sadly we might never know how much better it would be when overclocked.

 

"It's a new-ish technology" is a shitty argument for locking overclocking. What if Nvidia locked released a new architecture and went "well it's a new architecture so we will lock core overclocking. We don't know how this GPU will handle it." It would be really stupid of them right? Yeah, and it's the same argument as the one being repeated in here over and over.

 

We consumers don't have all the info regarding HBM yet. Apparently the implementation AMD uses on the Fury is limited to 4GB. There might be some limits to the clocked speed as well, and the card is close to that right out of the box.

 

It's not like AMD has a more expensive GPU and are afraid that people will buy a lower end card and then go "I'll just overclock this one and get the performance of the higher tier card". I think that's the reason why some *cough* Intel *cough* locks down overclocking but not in this case.

 

This forum has a huge amount of AMD fanboys ready to jump on Nvidia if they sneeze, and vice versa is true too. Stop pretending like this forum is some evil gang specifically targeting AMD because we got lots of people from both sides constantly fighting each other. Both sides are pretty insufferable.

AMD locks overclocking on most of their CPUs and APUs as well. Intel just has a much larger product portfolio and a more diverse consumer clientele. 

[Notional]

Yeah, so you're mad that AMD can't use Nvidia's effects. Tough stuff.

 

I'm mad AMD gamers cannot use the effects that are in their games, that they paid for. Market segregation can never be good for any consumer.

[Guest Kloaked]

I'm mad AMD gamers cannot use the effects that are in their games, that they paid for. Market segregation can never be good for any consumer.

 

Too bad. 

 

Graphics don't matter, remember?

[patrickjp93]

And where's your proof that those OEM problems even exist? I assume you have something. Also, custom drivers for a gaming machine? So people with $2000+ laptops deserve to get screwed over and wait days/weeks/months for driver updates due to a problem which might not even exist, all because you think that gaming should be restricted to desktops? You are so arrogant and narrow-minded...

I never said nor would that gaming should be limited to desktops. Also, the proof exists very much in the sales and performance of the stocks of MSI and others. High-cost, high-margin products that get a bad rap eat away at its finances. Also, there are plenty of support forum tickets you can view which are related to GPUs dying and overheating on their top models. Face it. Nvidia is justified in locking overclocking on mobile. The vast majority should not, and yes, sitting on the bleeding edge of technology tends to leave you short on support. That's true everywhere else outside gaming. You'll live and be fine. Not to mention it shouldn't take more than a day for anyone to modify a driver or BIOS to unlock overclocking. Literally all Nvidia would have to do is have a single boolean flag and release 1 version false and 1 version true, false going mainstream, and true going to Clevo and MSI and others. 

 

I'm sorry but the world does not revolve around consumers. It never has and never will. You will part with your money for the best deal you can get, and if the industry decides to "screw you" you will get screwed with no alternative option. Nvidia and AMD ARE the industry. AMD doesn't have a mobile lineup worth anything, and Nvidia has both itself, its AIB partners, and OEMs to look after to keep the money flowing its way. Less hassle and false warranty claims = more profit. That is the only equation which matters no matter how much you kick and scream. 

[Master Disaster]

Source: http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fiji-arrives-radeon-r9-fury-x-details_166515#OpQZsfoAmLt9ajjt.99

 

Remember that amazing performance everybody said they were going to gain from even slightly overclocking the memory on HBM, well apparently you won't get any performance improvements from doing that because there will be no memory overclocking on the card at all. AMD Disabled the feature, therefore you will be limited to Core overclocking entirely. I know a lot of people are going to say, well HBM is new blah blah blah blah. Listen, if NVIDIA blocks overclocking on Laptops and people throw a fit, then people should throw the same fit when a company tells you cannot experiment with overclocking their new memory system because it's better for you. It's all about freedom of choice, that's the beauty of using PC. Here a company is saying you don't have that freedom to experiment yourself. There should be equal treatment for AMD doing this. Mind you this might change in the future, but for the time being when the cards release you won't be able to do any memory overclocking at all. Of course it's not like you are limited by bandwidth from HBM, but that's not the point, right?

It'll be days or weeks until someone hacks the BIOS and enables the feature.

[Techhog]

I never said nor would that gaming should be limited to desktops. Also, the proof exists very much in the sales and performance of the stocks of MSI and others. High-cost, high-margin products that get a bad rap eat away at its finances. Also, there are plenty of support forum tickets you can view which are related to GPUs dying and overheating on their top models. Face it. Nvidia is justified in locking overclocking on mobile. The vast majority should not, and yes, sitting on the bleeding edge of technology tends to leave you short on support. That's true everywhere else outside gaming. You'll live and be fine. Not to mention it shouldn't take more than a day for anyone to modify a driver or BIOS to unlock overclocking. Literally all Nvidia would have to do is have a single boolean flag and release 1 version false and 1 version true, false going mainstream, and true going to Clevo and MSI and others. 

 

I'm sorry but the world does not revolve around consumers. It never has and never will. You will part with your money for the best deal you can get, and if the industry decides to "screw you" you will get screwed with no alternative option. Nvidia and AMD ARE the industry. AMD doesn't have a mobile lineup worth anything, and Nvidia has both itself, its AIB partners, and OEMs to look after to keep the money flowing its way. Less hassle and false warranty claims = more profit. That is the only equation which matters no matter how much you kick and scream. 

Okay then. So, question: Why doesn't this logic of your apply to the issue at hand?

[patrickjp93]

I'm mad AMD gamers cannot use the effects that are in their games, that they paid for. Market segregation can never be good for any consumer.

Consumers don't matter. Universally they have needs and wants and will pay whatever they deem fit to aid in the satisfaction of those needs/wants. AMD should get a CUDA license. They should have gotten one the three times they were offered it for free. Eventually AMD and its fans need to take a hint. AMD can't beat the competition with OpenCL. It just can't. If Linpack can't make a FirePro W9100 outperform a Tesla K40 despite having 0.98 TFlops DP extra theoretical performance through OpenCL, no one can.

 

AMD should do the right thing, admit they've lost and are shooting themselves in the foot, adopt CUDA, and move on to a brighter future. Either that or they need to get their butts in line on OpenCL and make it work like they promised half a decade ago.

[patrickjp93]

Okay then. So, question: Why doesn't this logic of your apply to the issue at hand?

It does apply. The problem is AMD locked down a feature on a desktop enthusiast card which they additionally dubbed "an overclocker's dream." Desktop is free from all the thermal and electrical constraints of a laptop. It's a completely different ballgame, much like tennis on French Clay instead of Hard Court. It may look similar, but you can't play them the same way.

[Notional]

Consumers don't matter. Universally they have needs and wants and will pay whatever they deem fit to aid in the satisfaction of those needs/wants. AMD should get a CUDA license. They should have gotten one the three times they were offered it for free. Eventually AMD and its fans need to take a hint. AMD can't beat the competition with OpenCL. It just can't. If Linpack can't make a FirePro W9100 outperform a Tesla K40 despite having 0.98 TFlops DP extra theoretical performance through OpenCL, no one can.

 

AMD should do the right thing, admit they've lost and are shooting themselves in the foot, adopt CUDA, and move on to a brighter future. Either that or they need to get their butts in line on OpenCL and make it work like they promised half a decade ago.

 

Of course they matter, don't be silly. But consumers behaviour, defines the actions of companies. When consumers buys more NVidia cards, after NVidia makes proprietary crap, that segregates the market, makes vendor lock in, and raises prices, and also gimps the memory on 970, then the (NVidia) consumers, are telling the industry, that that is ok.

 

All non APEX GameWorks effects runs like shit on AMD, so CUDA has nothing to do with that. Further more, I'm sure AMD could make APEX effects run on GCN without CUDA, if they had source code access. So stop spouting that nonsense.

 

Too bad. 

 

Graphics don't matter, remember?

 

As I said to Patrick, that kind of irrational consumer behaviour, is what allows NVidia to segregate the market and do anti consumer practices, that harms us all. How very idiotic.

Not sure what your straw man refers to.

[Techhog]

It does apply. The problem is AMD locked down a feature on a desktop enthusiast card which they additionally dubbed "an overclocker's dream." Desktop is free from all the thermal and electrical constraints of a laptop. It's a completely different ballgame, much like tennis on French Clay instead of Hard Court. It may look similar, but you can't play them the same way.

So, basically, it's wrong to disable overclocking if it should be okay in your opinion of the situation, even if you have no evidence to prove that they don't have a legitimate reason?

[patrickjp93]

Of course they matter, don't be silly. But consumers behaviour, defines the actions of companies. When consumers buys more NVidia cards, after NVidia makes proprietary crap, that segregates the market, makes vendor lock in, and raises prices, and also gimps the memory on 970, then the (NVidia) consumers, are telling the industry, that that is ok.

 

All non APEX GameWorks effects runs like shit on AMD, so CUDA has nothing to do with that. Further more, I'm sure AMD could make APEX effects run on GCN without CUDA, if they had source code access. So stop spouting that nonsense.

 

 

As I said to Patrick, that kind of irrational consumer behaviour, is what allows NVidia to segregate the market and do anti consumer practices, that harms us all. How very idiotic.

Not sure what your straw man refers to.

You do know that's because those effects are written in CUDA, right? AMD only has very basic access to allow those effects to run. If it bought a license and implemented support, that issue would go away. The other issue is AMD's tessellation engine is behind the times and has been since the 700 vs. 200 series.

 

But the consumers themselves don't matter. Only their needs/wants do. The consumer itself is irrelevant in any high-end business decisions. Why did IBM abandon consumer computing when it had a lead over both AMD and Intel in performance? Because the margins weren't high enough. Why did IBM abandon most server applications? Margins weren't high enough. Why does Apple not offer a budget-friendly option? Margins aren't high enough. All the top players do not give 2 flips about you the person, the consumer. All they care about is what you desire, and how they can give you that for the lowest cost they can achieve and the highest price you're willing to pay. Nothing else matters. Marketing only seeks to have you raise your price. Only early on does marketing bring exposure, or if the brand grows weak like Intel's has in recent years due to its shifting focus toward non-consumer fields.

[patrickjp93]

So, basically, it's wrong to disable overclocking if it should be okay in your opinion of the situation, even if you have no evidence to prove that they don't have a legitimate reason?

I have evidence that you can easily find for yourself. Now, are Nvidia and its partners going to come out and say that? No, because that would be bad publicity to throw blame at consumers for being greedy and corrupt (welcome to humanity).

 

I'm at least compromising and saying the laptops built for it should get a custom variant of drivers to allow it, but for most my answer is adamantly "no, you had your chance to be responsible and you blew it."

[LAwLz]

So, basically, it's wrong to disable overclocking if it should be okay in your opinion of the situation, even if you have no evidence to prove that they don't have a legitimate reason?

Well the big argument back when Nvidia locked overclocking on laptops was "people should be allowed to do it even if they break their things. Don't cater to the lowest common denominator" which I kind of agreed with. I agree with it even more now that we are looking at an enthusiast card being locked down.

I really hope this is just a temporary thing and the next generation will be unlocked, but the entire tech industry is slowly stripping customers of their rights and that worries me. Even if they are locking it to prevent people from damaging their cards, shouldn't the enthusiasts have to freedom to mess with their cards they bought for their own money? Overclocking always comes with the risk of damaging your things.

 

Anyway, still think we need more info before we attack/defend AMD over this. It's hard to tell if it's justified or not with our limited info.

 

 

 

The other issue is AMD's tessellation engine is behind the times and has been since the 700 vs. 200 series.

It's been behind quite a lot longer than 700 vs 200 series.

 

[Lethal Seraph]

Seems like every thread boils down to this.

 

[Techhog]

I have evidence that you can easily find for yourself. Now, are Nvidia and its partners going to come out and say that? No, because that would be bad publicity to throw blame at consumers for being greedy and corrupt (welcome to humanity).

 

I'm at least compromising and saying the laptops built for it should get a custom variant of drivers to allow it, but for most my answer is adamantly "no, you had your chance to be responsible and you blew it."

I was actually talking about not having evidence that AMD had no legitimate reason to block HBM overclocking. And I already explained why custom drivers would be a problem. Face it, you just base how fair things are on how closely they affect you. You're just a narrow-minded person. (Plus you've already openly admitted to wanting AMD to die ASAP, but I'm trying to ignore that.)

[patrickjp93]

I was actually talking about not having evidence that AMD had no legitimate reason to block HBM overclocking. And I already explained why custom drivers would be a problem. Face it, you just base how fair things are on how closely they affect you. You're just a narrow-minded person. (Plus you've already openly admitted to wanting AMD to die ASAP, but I'm trying to ignore that.)

AMD dying sooner rather than later is best for consumers. I've hashed that out a number of times, and most of the forum is convinced.

 

Custom drivers would not be an issue if done correctly. That is my point in that regard.

 

No, I base them off of reality as a whole and cover as many facets as I can find.

 

AMD has no legitimate reason. The better way to handle this is give a warning to the early reviewers and require they include it in their reviews and carefully demo the behavior of the memory upscaling. There's no reason to block it for the smart. Fried RAM also leaves very obvious signs of overvoltage. Logic chips don't due to the huge complexity compared to RAM cells. HBM would be no different in this regard. AMD wouldn't face remotely similar OEM and warranty problems by allowing HBM overclocking on a desktop enthusiast card.

[Techhog]

AMD dying sooner rather than later is best for consumers. I've hashed that out a number of times, and most of the forum is convinced.

 

Custom drivers would not be an issue if done correctly. That is my point in that regard.

 

No, I base them off of reality as a whole and cover as many facets as I can find.

 

AMD has no legitimate reason. The better way to handle this is give a warning to the early reviewers and require they include it in their reviews and carefully demo the behavior of the memory upscaling. There's no reason to block it for the smart. Fried RAM also leaves very obvious signs of overvoltage. Logic chips don't due to the huge complexity compared to RAM cells. HBM would be no different in this regard. AMD wouldn't face remotely similar OEM and warranty problems by allowing HBM overclocking on a desktop enthusiast card.

So many assumptions, so little time... I mean facts... Whatever. 

 

P.S. - I believe that your reason was that Intel would step up to compete with Nvidia, and that it's fine for consoles to die because you personally don't care about them, right? Laughable, on both accounts. I'm not gonna discuss that here though, and frankly I'm sick of this topic too.

[patrickjp93]

So many assumptions, so little time... I mean facts... Whatever. 

 

P.S. - I believe that your reason was that Intel would step up to compete with Nvidia, and that it's fine for consoles to die because you personally don't care about them, right? Laughable, on both accounts. I'm not gonna discuss that here though, and frankly I'm sick of this topic too.

Intel wants the crown of the world. If you think it wouldn't step up given access to the IP it needs, you're nuts.

 

Consoles get in the way of good game development. Ports from consoles are 9/10 of the time terrible in terms of performance despite a desktop having ludicrously more powerful hardware.

[Techhog]

Intel wants the crown of the world. If you think it wouldn't step up given access to the IP it needs, you're nuts.

 

Consoles get in the way of good game development. Ports from consoles are 9/10 of the time terrible in terms of performance despite a desktop having ludicrously more powerful hardware.

Not here. PMs if you want, but not here.