OCCT 3.1.0 shows HD4870/4890 design flaw - they can't handle the new GPU test !

[LordEC911]

Any special reason to why you didn't answer my question?

To your question: did you read all those that are having problems with it? Do you find acceptable that a buttload of cards fail under high load even if some don't?

How is that a question?
Where was I referring to an errata?

I read where the OP supposedly has this HUGE sample of cards that crash... whoops that was only 2 cards and 1 of them works.
In this thread I read where 3 people had a problem even getting the app to work and another 2 people that have a "problem card" but it worked just fine.

So right now... 4 samples:
1 reference card crashes
1 non-reference card works
2 reference cards work

also 3 cannot get app to work...

Obviously there is a problem with AMD/ATi making faulty cards, let's send all cards they make back and boycott them, that is the only solution.

Some of us like numbers and statistics to base our claim. Others like to jump to conclusions.

Edit- To the people complaining about AMD/ATi fanboys and all the supposed whining going on in this thread.
The OP tested 2 cards, jumped to a conclusion that all RV770 cards are faulty because they cannot handle his new power virus.
The title is very misleading and shows a large bias. What he could have/should have done is simply ask people here or in the GPU section to try out his new stability app and grab a consensus. After getting a good number of samples, then you might be able to post a thread like this, SHOWING the numbers.
This path he took is simply very wrong and a sad way to try and get attention for his app.

[STaRGaZeR]

How is that a question?

The answers to this question...

So now you're comparing a crash caused by an erratum with one caused by a crappy PWM?

...are yes or no. And why if you like. You haven't answered it yet.

I read where the OP supposedly has this HUGE sample of cards that crash... whoops that was only 2 cards.
In this thread I read where 3 people had a problem even getting the app to work and another 2 people that have a "problem card" but it worked just fine.

Some of us like numbers and statistics to base our claim. Others like to jump to conclusions.

Some of us use our little and insignificant brain to think about why ATI has capped FurMark, which is a less demanding application than this one, because it burned a few cards' PWM. Then we wonder about what will happen when we test this thing in more cards, like it happened with FurMark. The same people said back then bah, this application can't be right. It was so right that ATI capped it. What a surprise. However, right now it's just a conclusion indeed.
I've tested it in my 4870 and it FAILS. Let me ask you another question (will you answer this one?): will you admit the cards have such problem when ATI caps OCCT in a future driver release like it will probably happen?

Until the OP is willing to release the source code, then you can't claim ththe cards are failing because the program was proper. Since the OP is unwilling to release the source code, no logical conclusion can be made that a piece of hardware is failing due to PROPER software. I quote:

Anybody can. Why? Because the same cards that fail the test at default clocks pass it with 0 problems if they're underclocked. This has been proved too in this thread several times by the author you don't want to believe. Or did you miss it?

[LordEC911]

I've tested it in my 4870 and it FAILS. Let me ask you another question (will you answer this one?): will you admit the cards have such problem when ATI caps OCCT in a future driver release like it will probably happen?

Really when did you test it?
Did you read the thread?
Why didn't you post your results before?

This thread is obviously turning into a crap shoot thanks to the way the OP went about this thread.

HAHA just above your post

Wtf?
Learn to read. He had a 4800 running that didn't crash... Congrats.

[informal]

Who cares about this OCCT synthetics stress test? We have no reports of massive HD4xxx failures nor did any users who OC and overvolt their cards reported such behavior,even in most stressful tests like Crysis ,FarCry2 etc.

On the other hand ,if anyone likes to tests the quality of board design and VRM circuitry let him run this test and see if it bricks his card.He can say later his radeon has a flaw and RMA it for Nv card

[Luka_Aveiro]

This thread is obviously turning into a crap shoot thanks to the way the OP went about this thread.

It's turning into a crapshoot due to stubborn and biased interventions like yours.

We need to put order in the pack: post your HD4870/HD4890 fail/pass @ OCCT 3.1.0 RC1 or STFU

PLZ, TY

[LordEC911]

It's turning into a crapshoot due to stubborn and biased interventions like yours.

We need to put order in the pack: post your HD4870/HD4890 fail/pass @ OCCT 3.1.0 RC1 or STFU

PLZ, TY

Really?
So gathering the actual results and revealing the glaring bias of the OP is "stubborn and biased interventions?"
Thanks for your insight.

So like it was mentioned before, if this is a huge RV770 design flaw why is the 4850/4830 unaffected with their even "cheaper" VRMs?

[Tetedeiench]

Really?
So gathering the actual results and revealing the glaring bias of the OP is "stubborn and biased interventions?"
Thanks for your insight.

So like it was mentioned before, if this is a huge RV770 design flaw why is the 4850/4830 unaffected with their even "cheaper" VRMs?

The bug is happening only on 4870/4890 so far. We found 4850's to be unaffected (we even had a Crossfire of 4850 ro be "bug-free").

And we reproduced this bug on about 10 different cards, i stated that clearly in the first post, using AMD and Nvidia Processors, alot of different northbridges, and power supplies brands and such. Alot of hypothesys came live during this, and all were cut out, until the VRM one remained. Not 2. Please be constructive.

I mean, we even had a reference design underclocked running fine under 82A, bumped only the vGPU, and... well... black screen.

The 82A limit on the VRM right now is just a hypothesis. Really, it's the sole thing we can think of that could cause a crash that quick. I can't see temperature rising that quickly that will cause such a crash. If temperature was at stake, the crash wouldn't be that frank, you would see the donut with artefacts first, as usual.

Anyway, my goal is to understand what is going on. Again :

• Only 4870/4980 are affected (that's what our testing shows) at stock frequencies
• Only reference design (i.e. cards that use the reference design 3-stage VRM) are affected. That is a huge number of cards, but indeed, that is

I have to admit i'm surprised of the amount of "hate" i'm getting there. I mean, on any other board i'm going, OCCT is already pretty well known, and people know i'm not doing this for fame, or anything else (hell, OCCT has been around for 6 years now, why would i seek that just NOW ?).

Right now, i've seen RC1 news popping around everywhere (for my own discouragement - i hate people spreading betas), and people complaining that OCCT isn't compatible with ATI cards. Websites refuse to help me understand what is going on... they ignore my emails. I finally could get my hands on a french website - i do hope it'll start the chain.

Posting in the boards is the sole thing that is left for me to understand what is going on. Because i truly think my test is not at stake there, as underclocking make the cards support it.

[570091D]

I have to admit i'm surprised of the amount of "hate" i'm getting there. I mean, on any other board i'm going, OCCT is already pretty well known, and people know i'm not doing this for fame, or anything else (hell, OCCT has been around for 6 years now, why would i seek that just NOW ?).

Right now, i've seen RC1 news popping around everywhere (for my own discouragement - i hate people spreading betas), and people complaining that OCCT isn't compatible with ATI cards. Websites refuse to help me understand what is going on... they ignore my emails. I finally could get my hands on a french website - i do hope it'll start the chain.

Posting in the boards is the sole thing that is left for me to understand what is going on. Because i truly think my test is not at stake there, as underclocking make the cards support it.

well, i'll say 'thanks' for being open and honest with us.

i'm guessing that there was no way for ATI to know that there would be such a powerful graphics application available for these cards. i'm sure the pwm's are just fine for everything but this, and if that's the case, just leave the program at 2. there is no reason to ensure your card's stability under a load that no game can reproduce.

[STaRGaZeR]

Really when did you test it?
Did you read the thread?
Why didn't you post your results before?

LOL again, you didn't answer any of my questions, yet you write more. I'm putting you in the list of XS people that love to argue a lot, think they're always right but when you ask direct questions that compromise their argument they just STFU or act like you, with evasives and answering a question with another question not related to it (Speederlander, Shintai and the like). You know what list is it, don't you?

Learn how to do things properly:

- Some hours ago.
- Yes.
- Because I didn't want to. Last time I checked I decide when and what I write in the Internet. But who knows, maybe there's a conspiracy and I was hiding the result? Maybe I have invented it? Ahhh...

[LordEC911]

LOL again, you didn't answer any of my questions, yet you write more. I'm putting you in the list of XS people that love to argue a lot, think they're always right but when you ask direct questions that compromise their argument they just STFU or act like you, with evasives and answering a question with another question not related to it (Speederlander, Shintai and the like). You know what list is it, don't you?

Learn how to do things properly:

- Some hours ago.
- Yes.
- Because I didn't want to. Last time I checked I decide when and what I write in the Internet. But who knows, maybe there's a conspiracy and I was hiding the result? Maybe I have invented it? Ahhh...

And I find it amusing that you keep pushing me to answer a question in regards to something I didn't say.
You are intentionally misunderstanding my statement, twisting my words and then trying to provoke me into answering a question comparing things I didn't mention.
Also when you say "questions" you mean question right? There was only one.

Well I guess I will explain my thought to your question.
I was stating any special made software can cause hardware to fail, which was my original statement. You then ask me to compare an errata, which I didn't mention, to a VRM failure, also wasn't in my statement.
Why am I answering a question about myself comparing an errata to a VRM failure when I never did so?

This "supposed" VRM failure makes no sense, seeing as how lesser models are not affected, 4850/4830, and there is simply no proof to backup the claim that it is a VRM failure.

Also, when I asked you about why you didn't post your results right away, yes I was implying you didn't do the test.
Why would you wait until your fourth post in the thread to post the results, which were in a response to my start of gathering data, when you and the OP are trying to help the community with this thread?

Also with some updated results...
#Samples- 9

4 Crashes- Stargazer's 4870, cowie's 3x4890

5 Noncrashes- SparkyJJO's 4870@790mhz, Telperion's Asus DK, AMDDeathstar's VisionTek 4870's in CF@780mhz, MsB's Sapphire 4870 1Gb

Plus two people with a 4850 tested and didn't have a problem.

Then some are having problems with the App-
Zanzabar, Jamesrt2004's 4870,
Plastok's 4890

Again, there is no conclusive data here.

And we reproduced this bug on about 10 different cards, i stated that clearly in the first post, using AMD and Nvidia Processors, alot of different northbridges, and power supplies brands and such. Alot of hypothesys came live during this, and all were cut out, until the VRM one remained. Not 2. Please be constructive.

I am trying to, I guess I am not allowed to forget everything covered in the first post ~ 9 hours after I read it.
I guess what I was remembering was the test which you had the screenshots of.

[zerazax]

Anybody can. Why? Because the same cards that fail the test at default clocks pass it with 0 problems if they're underclocked. This has been proved too in this thread several times by the author you don't want to believe. Or did you miss it?

Oh really? He proved two cards? How many other members on this board just posted they encountered no such problem?

All sorts of cards will have varying tolerances, and unless the OP has more than a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE, his "conclusion" is irrelevant

Unless you've got a hundred cards that can all REPRODUCE this same issue, you're playing with small sample sizes

This is like basketball when someone shoots 12/15 for a game. Can you conclude this guy is a .800 shooter? And right now, from our own thread's results, the guy isn't even at 50% for the small sample size, so how can you conclude either way?