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

[Solus Corvus]

We're not saying "this will happen in every game". We're saying "the design is flawed". We're saying "there's a possibility this will happen in another program". Why is that ? Because it happened in a legitimate program (OCCT is just a a DirectX9 scene, i remind you), so it can happen again.

It could happen again, but it seems unlikely. Programs doing a real workload aren't going to only be using such simple shaders and doing nothing else. Even the next closest stress program (furmark) doesn't come close - and the most stressful game or GPGPU app are even further from the limit then that.

It is possible that a program could reach the limit doing ordinary operations, but it's hard to imagine what it'd be doing (besides stress testing).

When the pentium bug appeared for Intel (remember : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug ), it appeared very rarely, and in very specific applications, and in none that were available publicly. Yet Intel did recall the CPUs Am i saying we do have the exact same thing ? No, the P4 bug wasn't stress related. Was the problem described by the one who discovered the Pentium bug a power virus ? No, of course not. Am i saying AMD should do the very same thing, a huge recall ? That's up to them, i am not knowlegdeable enough to be able to know if they should, or not. I'd say no, personally.

It would be a good move from the PR side of things but a bad move from the business side of things, IMO.

It's not like the chips themselves have a problem. It's just the card implementation details that are a problem. For the 99% of people that don't use OCCT, the reference board is fine. For the rest of us there are 4 phase boards and easy workarounds for 3 phase cards.

The real problem isn't deciding if a recall is a good idea, it's how to address this issue without it becoming a PR disaster. There are people out there who will use this as a chance to smear AMD, no matter how they handle it.

i doubt the problem lies in 3 phase vs. 4 phase but ocp set too low vs. ocp set not too low

But wouldn't the 4 phase cards probably have a higher OCP limit as well?

[W1zzard]

But wouldn't the 4 phase cards probably have a higher OCP limit as well?

physical limit before the card explodes? probably, yes.

but the ocp limit is an artificial limit designed to avoid exactly that. it is chosen by the person who designs the power circuitry of the card. i am sure that there is plenty of headroom left in the 3 phase design

[LordEC911]

I'm still confused at how people are missing the fact that some reference cards are not failing...

[HiJon89]

I'm still confused at how people are missing the fact that some reference cards are not failing...

That is due to the fact that, for whatever reason, those cards are not drawing greater than 82A. There are a multitude of possible reasons for this outlined throughout the thread (not running the app with correct settings, having AA/AF forced in control panel, etc.) but the bottom line is that under the correct circumstances these cards can draw more than 82A and that all evidence indicates that once this happens the system will lock up instantly.

[Tetedeiench]

I'm still confused at how people are missing the fact that some reference cards are not failing...

I guess the cards without bugs fell into the following categories :

• A card that was not a reference design
• A setting that was forced in the driver that lowered the load, and thus made the test unable to reach the limit (Anisotropic 16x, FSAA, etc)
• Bad configuration of the test

[W1zzard]

I guess the cards without bugs fell into the following categories :

• A card that was not a reference design
• A setting that was forced in the driver that lowered the load, and thus made the test unable to reach the limit (Anisotropic 16x, FSAA, etc)
• Bad configuration of the test

another possible idea could be tolerances in components employed. it's not uncommon to see 5% for resistors.

[[XC] Lead Head]

I personally wouldn't expect ATI to recall cards, but make newer revisions with a higher OCP or a more robust VRM. Judging by how hot the VRM was getting on some of these cards, I'd question the capability of it.

[Tetedeiench]

It could happen again, but it seems unlikely. Programs doing a real workload aren't going to only be using such simple shaders and doing nothing else. Even the next closest stress program (furmark) doesn't come close - and the most stressful game or GPGPU app are even further from the limit then that.

It is possible that a program could reach the limit doing ordinary operations, but it's hard to imagine what it'd be doing (besides stress testing).


It would be a good move from the PR side of things but a bad move from the business side of things, IMO.

It's not like the chips themselves have a problem. It's just the card implementation details that are a problem. For the 99% of people that don't use OCCT, the reference board is fine. For the rest of us there are 4 phase boards and easy workarounds for 3 phase cards.

The real problem isn't deciding if a recall is a good idea, it's how to address this issue without it becoming a PR disaster. There are people out there who will use this as a chance to smear AMD, no matter how they handle it.


But wouldn't the 4 phase cards probably have a higher OCP limit as well?

Yes it's unlikely it'll happen again, just as the Pentium bug I already stated that.

I don't think a recall is a good idea, personally. I fail to see it a good solution. But people had to know that the design had a problem, that my app wasn't responsible for the black screen bug, and that the overclocking capabilities, which is a marketing argument, is limited on those cards.

I really see the recall being highly unlikely.