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

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Anyone who denies that this is no different than NVIDIA locking down overclocking on laptops is clearly a hypocrite, because the issues are one in the same. It's still locking down or disabling features that shouldn't be locked down.

 

Does the laptop have HBM?  I guess not... Although I agree that AMD shouldn't have lock that on a card they claim to be "enthusiast's dream". Neither you or me know jack shit about HBM or what can fuck up if we try to OC memory. 

[brokencross]

Sounds like you are making excuses. 

Dafuq? You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Also, what do you think about companies locking voltages? It's exactly the same thing.

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

Jesus backflipping christ, these past few days that list grew a tall tower

 

You ever think that maybe you are the problem? No couldn't be that could it...  :rolleyes:

 

 

Does the laptop have HBM?  I guess not... Although I agree that AMD shouldn't have lock that on a card they claim to be "enthusiast's dream". Neither you or me know jack shit about HBM or what can fuck up if we try to OC memory. 

 

No but a laptop can overheat easily and cause permanent damage to a mainboard. That didn't stop people from wanting to overclock them at all. And 60% of the people on this forum if not more all complained that they should be able to overclock it if they wanted to and NVIDIA is the devil for doing it.

 

 

Dafuq? You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Also, what do you think about companies locking voltages? It's exactly the same thing.

 

GDDR5 was introduced once, it was a new memory system, they didn't lock down overclocking on that. Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

 

They aren't just locking down voltages here clearly, because even with locked down voltages you can still overclock. Albeit not as much but you still can.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

No but a laptop can overheat easily and cause permanent damages to a mainboard. That didn't stop people from wanting to overclock them at all. And 60% of the people on this forum if not more all complained that they should be able to overclock it if they want to and NVIDIA is the devil for doing it.

 

Overheating you say? http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/315104-clevo-p150sm-cooling-mods-to-handle-overclocked-980m/#entry4286642

[BiG StroOnZ]

Overheating you say? http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/315104-clevo-p150sm-cooling-mods-to-handle-overclocked-980m/#entry4286642

 

That's after someone modded it? 

[QueenDemetria]

I just came here to say ClockBlock. I don't have much else to say.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

That's after someone modded it? 

 

Yeap and that was why half the people were against fully locking overclocking on laptops, because you have people like them that want to do it

[BiG StroOnZ]

Yeap and that was why half the people were against fully locking overclocking on laptops, because you have people like them that want to do it

 

Show me a 1,000 more people with modded laptops like that and I'll believe that...  :rolleyes:

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Show me a 1,000 more people with modded laptops like that and I'll believe that...  :rolleyes:

 

Nah I'm too lazy  :lol:

[Lays]

q

 

More excuses. GDDR5 was new at one time too.

q

 

 

 

While I think we should be able to, if they are locking it down, I feel like they probably have a reason for it.

I wish they would tell us what that reason is though, or atleast give us some sort of option to OC it anyways with a warning like "this could cause x.x.x.x. problem etc"

 

Since it is new and on the die, is it possible it could become more unstable with OC's versus when it wasn't near the GPU?

 

From what I've seen from AMD cards in the past, they're usually much more unlocked voltage wise than Nvidia's cards, so I think if they aren't allowing it, it could be for a good reason.  (I can't speak from all of AMD's cards, as I've only owned the 290x reference and 290x Lightning, both of which had much more voltage allowance vs my 970 SLI / 780 SLI / Titan)

I really think we should be the ones to make the choice though.  I would totally understand if going a few mhz over stock causes massive driver problems and artifacting in games, but perhaps keeping it colder would help with those issues, say on DICE/Ln2/ custom water + chiller, etc.

[BiG StroOnZ]

While I think we should be able to, if they are locking it down, I feel like they probably have a reason for it.

I wish they would tell us what that reason is though, or atleast give us some sort of option to OC it anyways with a warning like "this could cause x.x.x.x. problem etc"

 

Since it is new and on the die, is it possible it could become more unstable with OC's versus when it wasn't near the GPU?

 

From what I've seen from AMD cards in the past, they're usually much more unlocked voltage wise than Nvidia's cards, so I think if they aren't allowing it, it could be for a good reason.  (I can't speak from all of AMD's cards, as I've only owned the 290x reference and 290x Lightning, both of which had much more voltage allowance vs my 970 SLI / 780 SLI / Titan)

I really think we should be the ones to make the choice though.  I would totally understand if going a few mhz over stock causes massive driver problems and artifacting in games, but perhaps keeping it colder would help with those issues, say on DICE/Ln2/ custom water + chiller, etc.

 

Their stated reason is the memory system is "too new" and there's more than enough bandwidth so basically they are saying "it's not needed." Seems like quite a vague response altogether. What does it being too new have anything to do with it, at least specify why overclocking needs to be disabled for it. Not just, "it is too new." Also for most people stock clocks are fine, and you get more than "enough" performance but enough isn't always enough for everybody we want to push our components to the limits to squeeze every last ounce of performance out.

 

I would much rather them give us the option of being able to overclock, with a warning of some sort also. It's kind of always been that way really. But outright locking or or blocking it and not really giving much information as to why. Simply saying it is "too new" is not a good enough answer for someone spending upwards of $650 on an enthusiast class part.

 

Someone said that could be the case, at least it being on the interposer, but I'm pretty sure they would have at least stated this for the person writing the article. They would have to know that giving this piece of information was pivotal in regards to how people were going to respond to it. I'm not sure why they decided that "because it's too new" was clear enough.

 

That's my main issue here, is the removal of choice. And also, the curiosity of how this memory overclocks mainly. 

[Lays]

Their stated reason is the memory system is "too new" and there's more than enough bandwidth so basically they are saying "it's not needed." Seems like quite a vague response altogether. What does it being too new have anything to do with it, at least specify why overclocking needs to be disabled for it. Not just, "it is too new." Also for most people stock clocks are fine, and you get more than "enough" performance but enough isn't always enough for everybody we want to push our components to the limits to squeeze every last ounce of performance out.

 

I would much rather them give us the option of being able to overclock, with a warning of some sort also. It's kind of always been that way really. But outright locking or or blocking it and not really giving much information as to why. Simply saying it is "too new" is not a good enough answer for someone spending upwards of $650 on an enthusiast class part.

 

Someone said that could be the case, at least it being on the interposer, but I'm pretty sure they would have at least stated this for the person writing the article. They would have to know that giving this piece of information was pivotal in regards to how people were going to respond to it. I'm not sure why they decided that "because it's too new" was clear enough.

 

That's my main issue here, is the removal of choice. And also, the curiosity of how this memory overclocks mainly. 

 

 

Awww I didn't know they had already given a reason, and a reason as vague as that is quite sad

 

Yeah I agree on the removal of choice thing, I personally love pushing hardware to it's limits and competing on hwbot.org, hell I'm third place in rookie league right now

[itachipirate]

AMD is so lenient with everything else, I really don't see them locking VRAM clockspeed for no good reason. It would be a lot worse if they didn't lock it, and everyone tried to OC their fancy new $650 graphics card and instantly destroyed it. HBM is new, maybe it fries easily if you push the overclock too far.

 

How long until someone will flash a custom BIOS and then cry when a 50mhz clock bump on their VRAM destroys the whole card

[Thorium19]

HBM is a completely new, unknown entity for people, so allowing them to overclock it at this point would be foolish, AMD are doing the right thing here. People may think it'll overclock just as easily as GDDR5 and may try to knock a 100Mhz overclock on it, when really a 10Mhz overclock is all that it is capable of, due to the design of it.

Until they actually let professional overclockers loose with it to see how high they can get the HBM on different cooling solutions etc. then I do think locking the ability to OC it makes perfect sense.

[HippY]

@patrickjp93

It is incredible seeing people talking about a complicated piece of electronics with a never seen before technology, like something as simple as a 1+1, without actually understanding that it *might* be different than the GDDR5 both in structure and its connections

Ill hang out in the pub while reading the thread, wanna join?

[Nielips]

Not an illogical thing to do, considering no one has ever even used this technology before, imagine the amount of dead cards from people not understanding the limits of the memory.

[WolfDeville]

 

[79 Potatoes]

 

KeK pic 8/8

[deviant88]

If you have any shit to throw at AMD for blocking OC, than you should have done the same to Intel when they blocked OC for all i3/i5/i7 with exception of 2 chips from the series,and no one complained they pay more for nothing else than a number switched to a different value in the cpu microcode.All i3/5/7 can OC like monsters yet they are all locked.

[TorqueS]

Well I think that's one of the risks AMD took when they decided to implement HBM. First gen is not flawless, hell not even second gen, third gen etc...

I think they do this in order to prevent some ignorant pricks from OC*ing it like normal GDDR5, kill their cards and then blame AMD, therefore gaining even worse reputation.

[Diceair]

Why do you need to overclock memory anyway. We all should know memory will not affect performance that much anyway but hey maybe because of limitations in GDDR5 it doesn't do anything to improve performance. So if they focused more on memory then hey maybe it will make a difference. 

 

It's first HBM so maybe in gen 2 or so you will be able to overclock memory as well. At least we can overclock the core and that's where the performance lies

[Mooshi]

Let's look at this logically. There's the obvious of it being newer tech. AMD is also a company that while isn't the leader, is still a huge company. Do you really believe AMD wants to handle a butt load of RMAs from customers breaking their shiny new toy?

[Guest]

[samcool55]

Well maybe OC'ing kills it?

And maybe the power delivery or something isn't developed enough to survive any oc?

Electronic stuff can be very sensitive!

[brokencross]

GDDR5 was introduced once, it was a new memory system, they didn't lock down overclocking on that. Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

 

They aren't just locking down voltages here clearly, because even with locked down voltages you can still overclock. Albeit not as much but you still can.

 

lol, you do know GDDR architecture is around since jesus christ, right?

Eh, clearly you don't.

 

 

 

Their stated reason is the memory system is "too new" and there's more than enough bandwidth so basically they are saying "it's not needed." Seems like quite a vague response altogether. What does it being too new have anything to do with it, at least specify why overclocking needs to be disabled for it. Not just, "it is too new." Also for most people stock clocks are fine, and you get more than "enough" performance but enough isn't always enough for everybody we want to push our components to the limits to squeeze every last ounce of performance out.

 

I would much rather them give us the option of being able to overclock, with a warning of some sort also. It's kind of always been that way really. But outright locking or or blocking it and not really giving much information as to why. Simply saying it is "too new" is not a good enough answer for someone spending upwards of $650 on an enthusiast class part.

 

Someone said that could be the case, at least it being on the interposer, but I'm pretty sure they would have at least stated this for the person writing the article. They would have to know that giving this piece of information was pivotal in regards to how people were going to respond to it. I'm not sure why they decided that "because it's too new" was clear enough.

 

That's my main issue here, is the removal of choice. And also, the curiosity of how this memory overclocks mainly. 

 

Yeah, aka "we don't really know what the consumer will do with the card so we'll just lock down the vram so nobody fucks it up thinking it's the same as overclocking a GDDR vram and we also are pretty new to this whole HBM stuff."