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

[FratStar]

Serous question, how much of a performance gain can you can by only OCing the memory?

 

Not much at all you get way for overclocking the Core clock that was even validated by a video that Linus did. 

[Sparviero]

only AMD overdrive is locked out and amd is willing to reverse course down the road?

[Doobeedoo]

Ha, I was just thinking about this, how will OC work with HBM and I actually thought they may lock it now Was right, haha.

[MrRavens]

TBH, doesn't seem like you need to OC it.

Ye, I think we'll live.

[Notional]

This is the first product on the market with this new technology, so it really isn't a big deal. I understand a lot of people would love to OC the HBM, just for the reason of doing it, but as it stands now, there is no way in hell, the memory would ever bottleneck the card, with it's massive bandwidth. So is there any point to it, other than for the heck of it?

[Techhog]

I'm just annoyed at the uncompromising defense of AMD when Nvidia got huge flak for disabling laptop overclocking when it was causing huge OEM problems and headaches from stupid users who keep trying to claim warranties after overclocking when it's difficult to detect if the GPUs were overclocked. This is the same damn thing down just 1 step, on  DESKTOP ENTHUSIAST CARD!

It's not really the same thing. For one, overclocking voids your warranty no matter what, desktop or laptop. For another thing, as much as you "PC MASTUR RACE ONLY $1000+ DESKTOPS MATTER HUR HUR" guys want to deny it, there are laptops which not only have overclocking headroom, but advertise it as a feature; those were affected by that driver too. Also, you're going to pretend that half of this forum doesn't defend every single thing that Nvidia does, just lol. 

 

I really think that they just need to explain it better. We already know for a fact that yields are low, so it's possible that AMD really didn't have much a choice. Low yields means two things:

 

1.) They may have to settle for using lower quality stacks, and

2.) The number of stack available for them to use is limited.

 

So, in this scenario, those low quality stacks die easily from overclocking, and AMD can't replace broken chips because they're limited in how many they can produce. If this is the case, it's an easily justifiable reason. AMD hasn't come out and said it, but it's what logic would dictate. They'd be forced to throw market share in the trash because some people want brag about how big their number is, even though it has no effect on performance whatsoever. The same can't be said of what Nvidia did with laptops, since those which advertise overclockability will actually see a performance benefit from overclocking. 

[patrickjp93]

It's not really the same thing. For one, overclocking voids your warranty no matter what, desktop or laptop. For another thing, as much as you "PC MASTUR RACE ONLY $1000+ DESKTOPS MATTER HUR HUR" guys want to deny it, there are laptops which not only have overclocking headroom, but advertise it as a feature; those were affected by that driver too. Also, you're going to pretend that half of this forum doesn't defend every single thing that Nvidia does, just lol. 

 

I really think that they just need to explain it better. We already know for a fact that yields are low, so it's possible that AMD really didn't have much a choice. Low yields means two things:

 

1.) They may have to settle for using lower quality stacks, and

2.) The number of stack available for them to use is limited.

 

So, in this scenario, those low quality stacks die easily from overclocking, and AMD can't replace broken chips because they're limited in how many they can produce. If this is the case, it's an easily justifiable reason. AMD hasn't come out and said it, but it's what logic would dictate. They'd be forced to throw market share in the trash because some people want brag about how big their number is, even though it has no effect on performance whatsoever. The same can't be said of what Nvidia did with laptops, since those which advertise overclockability will actually see a performance benefit from overclocking. 

There was defense of Nvidia because of OEM problems, and as a tech enthusiast I have to agree with that defense. Let MSI and Clevo get custom drivers for their beefy laptops. For 95% of the cases, locking overclocking is the right decision. And just because it voids your warranty doesn't mean it's easily proven that that's what you did. It's actually rather difficult to prove someone has overvolted and overclocked a CPU/GPU to death and takes a lot of time and expensive equipment to do. 

 

You should say it means one of two things. AMD could also solely be choosing to use the high quality stacks and eating the cost of the production for the rest.

[marldorthegreat]

What if overclocking does not work. And it just puts more power in the the memory, but does not increase the speed. Which could burn it out. 

[Lays]

q

 

 

Since when did overclocking void warranties these days? Didn't realize it was 2004 anymore.

 

Companies literally advertise and hype up that their products are better at overclocking than other companies, and have software for overclocking their products. You can literally kill CPU's whilst extreme overclocking and still RMA them to intel, even without the tuning plan. 

 

Companies put so many limits on their hardware now that you really can't kill it without modifying your BIOS + desoldering resistors on GPU's most of the time.

 

CPU's are easily kill-able, but as long as it's still in warranty, intel will still replace it.  @ProKoN has killed a few 4770k/4790k's overclocking with DICE, hasn't had an RMA turned down yet I don't think.

[Brainless906]

i...is there a reason to overclock memory with a 4096 bit bus and a bandwidth of 512gb/s?

 

There a few things i would consider here. This is a new form of memory and expecting it to act like the older Gddr5 would be a bit silly. a 50mhz oc to memory is nothing on an r9 290x but for a gpu with a standard speed of 500mhz thats a 10% OC and could (potentially) burn it up easily as hell.

 

"AMD feels that the memory technology is too new and there is more than enough bandwidth" sounds exactly like what I just said.

 

That said i'm conflicted. I disliked when nvidia shut down laptop OCing as well even though they had a very valid reason and OCing on a laptop really could do much I still dont prefer locked down things.

 

I'm going to stand on the side of the fence that I dislike this but honestly it doesn't make a difference. Especially if doing so would endanger the hardware significantly.

If nvidia didnt want to eat any costs from OEM vendor RMAs then AMD can afford even less to deal with that kind of situation. 

[Trik'Stari]

Well this blew up quickly.

[Guest]

For the record I did not think it was a big deal that nvidia restricted overclocking of mobile gpus, different vendors have different notebook sizes with different thermal constraints based on the configurations used, such that not all 970ms perform the same and are as capable of being pushed to the same degree.   So why not tamp down on that.

Well I didn't care either tbh, it was a laptop, OCing them is generally not a very widespread practice.

 

I did however state that the situations are not the same, not the same thing is being locked,  and that's a fact.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Nvidia fanboy here. I don't like it but I honestly don't think it is that big of a deal. Memory overclocking is cool and all and maybe it would be even more important on hbm but I would kinda like to see how the rest of the card functions without memory modifications first.

You know... Controlling variables...

On the other end. I'm sure no one who has overclocked laptop gpus actually was ok with the lockout on mobile gpus.

Overclocking without voltage modification barely changes the gpu temps while massively improving their performance. For me example the only reason I can still game on my current laptop (660m lol) is because it has a +500 MHz overclock. Literally the laptop is 19th percential without overclock and 35th percential with it.

[FaZe Booce]

Its so the cards can't put out any more heat than they already do ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Gunjob]

Come on guys, be realistic. This is brand new memory tech, this isn't a permanent stance as well it can change down the line. Key words also should tell you everything "In overdrive", there is a solid chance that its only locked off in CCC, but afterburner etc can still do it.

 

I swear every detail about the Fury so far has been thrown into the air with a "Well see... look its awful" so many of you seem to be hoping its going to be terrible. I can almost guarantee you will be able to OC the memory with 3rd part apps or at the very least a custom BIOS.

 

Judging by the people who are complaining, I'm sure non of you chose to remember that to get the best OC out of an NV card you need to load up a custom BIOS to get any meaningful amount of power to the GPU.

 

Put the pitch forks down.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Come on guys, be realistic. This is brand new memory tech, this isn't a permanent stance as well it can change down the line. Key words also should tell you everything "In overdrive", there is a solid chance that its only locked off in CCC, but afterburner etc can still do it.

I swear every detail about the Fury so far has been thrown into the air with a "Well see... look its awful" so many of you seem to be hoping its going to be terrible. I can almost guarantee you will be able to OC the memory with 3rd part apps or at the very least a custom BIOS.

Judging by the people who are complaining, I'm sure non of you chose to remember that to get the best OC out of an NV card you need to load up a custom BIOS to get any meaningful amount of power to the GPU.

Put the pitch forks down.

In fairness to them, 106% power limit had thus far obliterated the 200 series. Nvidia really never liked the idea of +40-50% power limit that amd is chill for you throwing on their cards.

I mean take that how you will, it just is the way it is. I understand from an end user you really would like to get the max out but from a business perspective putting barriers between people frying their cards then bitching at you makes sense as well.

[Gunjob]

In fairness to them, 106% power limit had thus far obliterated the 200 series. Nvidia really never liked the idea of +40-50% power limit that amd is chill for you throwing on their cards.

I mean take that how you will, it just is the way it is. I understand from an end user you really would like to get the max out but from a business perspective putting barriers between people frying their cards then bitching at you makes sense as well.

Oh yeah I'm right there with you, I think leaving out the ability to OC the memory for the first couple months of launch is a good thing. No one has any idea how it will respond or if it will break with a few MHz. Let the reviewers and other folk use a custom BIOS so they can test it for the consumer. Before average joe fries his card because he tried a 150Mhz OC because thats what he had on his GDDR5 card.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Oh yeah I'm right there with you, I think leaving out the ability to OC the memory for the first couple months of launch is a good thing. No one has any idea how it will respond or if it will break with a few MHz. Let the reviewers and other folk use a custom BIOS so they can test it for the consumer. Before average joe fries his card because he tried a 150Mhz OC because thats what he had on his GDDR5 card.

exactly. Even this admitted nvidia fanboy agrees this is honestly probably the right move at least until people get a sense of what hbm can handle.

Also kinda funny but I get trolled a lot for being a nvidia fanboy but if you look at my most recent posts I've recommended more amd products in the last month than I have recommended nvidia in the last 6. (Mainly cause the 200 series recently has become a fantastic value).

[MageTank]

I was wanting to stay out of this, but i will just stop by to clear up some inconsistencies in this thread. Putting aside brands (whether it be AMD or Nvidia)

 

I will clear up the following inconsistencies:

 

1. "Your warranty is voided when Overclocking a graphics card".

This is a tricky subject, as different board partners and manufacturers have different views on what voids their warranty, but luckily most of it falls under one specific set of rules. Overclocking is generally okay as long as you do not surpass the original power limitations imposed by the cards intended BIOS. If you hack your BIOS to supply more power than what the card was allowed to use (volt mods) then yes, your warranty will be voided immediately upon doing so. 

 

http://www.evga.com/support/faq/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=55

 

Some cards even advertise better power delivery, and limits as a feature. They even advertise better overclocking performance. With current technology in place to prevent hardware failure from heat (throttling) it is unlikely that overclocking under normal guidelines will actually kill hardware. 

 

2. "This is false advertisement because this was advertised as an Overclockers card!"

Nowhere was it ever stated that you could overclock the memory of this card. The core clock can still be overclocked, which is all that they need to advertise it as an overclockable card. That being said, i honestly do not see why people feel they need to OC this cards memory, as its bandwidth is already high enough to supplement an 8gb frame buffer 2-3 times over. 

 

Now that i've cleared up those two little tid bits of information, you people can have at it. I won't talk about why it was locked, because frankly, i don't really care. Besides, every source is indicating that it was removed from AMD Overdrive. That leaves the possibilities that board partners are still going to allow people to OC the memory if they want to. 

[LAwLz]

I go and buy a new car.

I'm blocked from making it go faster or taking weight out to make my life better.

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...

 

Get off your soap box. Look at this thread. People either make excuses or don't care. And what about you? This is the same significance as Nvidia locking overclocking on laptops.

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.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Well this blew up quickly.

 

Heh, everything blows up in this forum.

[Castdeath97]

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.

The real question is why is AMD doing so? Will they benefit in any means of they blocked a part of a feature they are already touting? Why are they disabling memory overclocking in their flagship card which is target to enthusiasts while its fine for other lower end cards?

[Castdeath97]

Heh, everything blows up in this forum.

It could be worse, or more or less is going to get worse......

[Notional]

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.

 

Newish technology? Name one piece of tech other than Fury, that has HBM. We have no idea of the overhead that HBM allows in speed, or if there even is any. This is not a new architecture, this is an entirely new technology that hasn't existed before. Locking it down, until full testing, production methods, etc are down, is a clever thing. Especially considering this is only a 500mhz part. Overclocking it 50 MHz is like OC'ing a 980ti 175/700 MHz on the memory. Can you imagine people starting an overclock based on their knowledge of GDDR5?

 

Either way, HBM is not a bottleneck, and you can OC the GPU itself. I don't see the problem in praxis, but understand that people want to try and OC just for the hell of it. But we all know what happens, if people start frying their HBM OC'ing them a tiny bit. AMD will get the standard shit fest, as we are used to. If this is the same with HBM2, Pascal should be locked down as well. I wonder what people would say to that.

[flibberdipper]

I think AMD is perfectly reasonable in this. I think they don't want people to fuck up their cards from overclocking the VRAM and then getting their pitchforcks out and coming after AMD.

 

(Elpida for life! Only thing on my 7950 that overclocks well, and it maxes out the slider...)