[KitGuru]XFX offer 6990 warranty for OC mode

[hdfxst]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/carl/xfx-offer-hd6990-warranty-support-for-oc-mode/

Looks like the partners will cover the warranty on overclocked 6990's(at least XFX will)

 

[badb0y]

 

[Red Storm]

XFX has always been good to me, nice to see them step up here. :thumbsup:

 

[Arkadrel]

Thats pretty big of them... if I had to buy a 6990, and Xfx was a option, thatd be the one I bought then.

 

[MentalIlness]

Didn't I read in another thread that someone said "XFX is garbage" when it came to warranty ?

 

[Idontcare]

AMD may have intentionally restricted the warranty on OC mode usage so as to give the AIB's the opportunity to differentiate their products by covering it with a warning.

Either way, win for the consumer.

 

[Elfear]

Glad the AIBs are stepping up. Seems dumb to have a bios switch on the card if using it would negate your warranty.

 

[apoppin]

AMD may have intentionally restricted the warranty on OC mode usage so as to give the AIB's the opportunity to differentiate their products by covering it with a warning.
. . .

It looks like AMD just doesn't want to pay for returned chips - period!

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/carl/amds-official-statement-over-hd6990-warranty/

AMD’s product warranty only applies to HD 6990 graphics cards operated under the default configuration (830MHz GPU clock), and does not cover damages caused by running the HD 6990 graphics card in the overclocked toggle position. Consequentially, AMD will not warrant or accept RMAs for HD 6990 graphics cards which have been overclocked, or where the yellow warning sticker has been removed or otherwise tampered with.

i have asked Diamond Multimedia to clarify their own warranty on the factory-overclocked No2 BIOS

AMD's own site is still really unclear on this as it says:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#4

DAMAGES CAUSED BY USE OF YOUR AMD GRAPHICS PROCESSOR OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION OR IN EXCESS OF FACTORY SETTINGS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER YOUR AMD PRODUCT WARRANTY AND MAY NOT BE COVERED BY YOUR SYSTEM MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY.
​

This might be open to interpretation as both BIOS positions are "factory settings".

 

[OCGuy]

XFX is the way to go for AMD.

 

[Idontcare]

It looks like AMD just doesn't want to pay for returned chips - period!

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/carl/amds-official-statement-over-hd6990-warranty/

i have asked Diamond Multimedia to clarify their own warranty on the factory-overclocked No2 BIOS

AMD's own site is still really unclear on this as it says:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#4

This might be open to interpretation as both BIOS positions are "factory settings".

My take on all this is that AMD wants to have wiggle room should there be some massive return rate.

They really do want to honor the warranty and set otherwise good consumers back on track with replaced hardware but they don't want to be legally required to deal with a trickle becoming a deluge.

They are "playing it by ear" IMO.

Intel has more or less done the same thing with replacement chips under warranty for OC'ed chips. Its never become a serious issue so why press the matter from their perspective, but in the meantime keep the civil suits at arms lengths should there suddenly be a massive fail rate and they elect to just stop honoring the rma's under the guise of "the sticker over the switch is missing".

 

[apoppin]

My take on all this is that AMD wants to have wiggle room should there be some massive return rate.

They really do want to honor the warranty and set otherwise good consumers back on track with replaced hardware but they don't want to be legally required to deal with a trickle becoming a deluge.

They are "playing it by ear" IMO.

Intel has more or less done the same thing with replacement chips under warranty for OC'ed chips. Its never become a serious issue so why press the matter from their perspective, but in the meantime keep the civil suits at arms lengths should there suddenly be a massive fail rate and they elect to just stop honoring the rma's under the guise of "the sticker over the switch is missing".

What is a reviewer to do?

i remember that there was a massive outcry on this forum when Ryan Smith included overclocked GTX 460 results - and EVGA still warranties that card. AnandTech also used overclocked 6990 results as i did and no one said anything.

In the future, shall i only test the HD 6990 in the setting that AMD supports? BIOS setting No2 would be an "out of spec" card - not covered by factory specifications and completely without any product warranty.

AMD cannot have it both ways. According to their site, "only factory settings" are covered by warranty.
----What the heck is BIOS position No2? Not a "factory setting"? Logic will tell you otherwise. i think AMD should clarify their HD 6990 warranty on their website.
:\

 

[badb0y]

What is a reviewer to do?

i remember that there was a massive outcry when Ryan included overclocked GTX 460 results - and EVGA still warranties that card.

Shall i only test the HD 6990 in the setting that AMD supports? Anything else would be an "out of spec" card - not covered by factory specifications.

AMD cannot have it both ways
:\

I think you should test it with stock settings unless AMD comes out and says flipping the switch won't void your warranty.

EDIT: If a lot more AIBs step up than you should include the AUSUM switch results as well but we just have to wait and see.

 

[apoppin]

I think you should test it with stock settings unless AMD comes out and says flipping the switch won't void your warranty.

EDIT: If a lot more AIBs step up than you should include the AUSUM switch results as well but we just have to wait and see.

That is what i am thinking and that is what has been said at my own forum so far.

A reviewer should only show the factory-supported settings. If i get a XFX card, then i can show the XFX settings.

Anyone think otherwise? What is fair? We may have a dual-GPU from the competition and i'd like to apply the same rule evenly.

 

[Madcatatlas]

The difference between a halo/very high end/hardcore etc etc product and a mainstream bulk seller card should have some weight in a discussion like this imo Apoppin.

You can buy any card for any reason. Id wager most people buying the 6990 use it with the awsum switched on.

 

[3DVagabond]

What is a reviewer to do?

i remember that there was a massive outcry on this forum when Ryan Smith included overclocked GTX 460 results - and EVGA still warranties that card. AnandTech also used overclocked 6990 results as i did and no one said anything.

In the future, shall i only test the HD 6990 in the setting that AMD supports? BIOS setting No2 would be an "out of spec" card - not covered by factory specifications and completely without any product warranty.

AMD cannot have it both ways. According to their site, "only factory settings" are covered by warranty.
----What the heck is BIOS position No2? Not a "factory setting"? Logic will tell you otherwise. i think AMD should clarify their HD 6990 warranty on their website.
:\

The "outcry" about the 460FTW had nothing to do with the cards warranty. Nor, whether a card's warranty should have anything to do with it being an acceptable product to compare performance figures from.

IMHO, you should review cards as the consumers are likely to use them. That's the information that is pertinent. Not all of the information is going to be equally as useful for everyone.

Then there is the added testing just to satisfy people's curiosities and to give people something interesting to read. You want people to read your reviews, after all.

I think all cards should be compared at stock settings. I realize we have a gray area here on what stock exactly is, in this instance.

Also test the card O/C, with and without voltage, with supplied software (CCC for instance) and also with utilities that might allow more settings and increased performance. Especially if these utilities are free and readily available.

If people are likely to flip the switch, then they need to know what it's going to get them. For me, I'm surprised at how little extra performance it gives. Also, in most situations, you aren't going to realize any difference in game play.

I mean really, anyone gonna notice 3% overall?

To me, testing the card in AUSUM mode shows me it isn't worth the additional power, noise, and heat. Then factor in the warranty, and, if it's not covered, it's not worth it at all.

So, test it, let me see the results, perf/power/heat, let me know if the AIB is warrantying the product, and let me decide what I want to do. Please and thank you.

 

[Idontcare]

That is what i am thinking and that is what has been said at my own forum so far.

A reviewer should only show the factory-supported settings. If i get a XFX card, then i can show the XFX settings.

Anyone think otherwise? What is fair? We may have a dual-GPU from the competition and i'd like to apply the same rule evenly.

I can only imagine the level of frustration this must generate for you Mark, AMD has definitely gone to great lengths to muddle and confuse the matters.

On the other hand this is a problem for the consumer, not necessarily a problem for the reviewer unless you aim to review more than just the hardware/product when doing a review.

I can't say for certain how I'd handle the situation were I in the reviewer's shoes, but my view on it is that this is no different than reviewing an unlocked CPU and testing both the stock clocks (which is covered by warranty) and then overclocking it by "flipping the multiplier bits" in the BIOS.

In this sense you are very much reviewing the product for all that it represents to a would-be customer from the performance standpoint.

I don't hold it against any reviewer that they OC their CPU samples, voiding the warranty, to show us performance possibilities. I don't hold it against you that you flipped the switch to show us the same for the HD6990.

The gray area of course would presumably come into play when you had to make a "buy" or "don't buy" recommendation at the end of the review...and for that part of it I think it is only fair and expected of you to factor in the loss of value from the loss of warranty when OC'ing.

Again no different than a CPU review that is heavily factoring in the OC'ability of the CPU in deriving their value-based recommendations IMO.

 

[96Firebird]

I remember when everyone was up in arms over the GTX460 FTW being benched, I'd say benching a card that loses it's warranty (which was assumed at the time of release) is just as bad. Now that XFX has come forward and said they will honor the warranty on those that flip the switch, it should be noted in the review as such.

I do, however, find it a bit hypocritical that those who shamed Nvidia for pulling tricks don't show the same animosity toward AMD for pulling this stunt.

 

[3DVagabond]

I remember when everyone was up in arms over the GTX460 FTW being benched, I'd say benching a card that loses it's warranty (which was assumed at the time of release) is just as bad. Now that XFX has come forward and said they will honor the warranty on those that flip the switch, it should be noted in the review as such.

I do, however, find it a bit hypocritical that those who shamed Nvidia for pulling tricks don't show the same animosity toward AMD for pulling this stunt.

Apples and oranges. The fervor wasn't caused by the 460FTW not having a warranty. Your post here is the first time I've ever seen anyone mention that. People were saying that because EVGA don't give it a lifetime warranty, like their other premium cards, people should be concerned as to why. No one said because it comes with a limited warranty it shouldn't be reviewed.

I don't want to drag all of the 460FTW discussions back out, if we can avoid it, because the thread is about XFX honoring your warranty if you flip the switch. If any of the people here actually intend on buying a 6990, then this is good info.

I can't believe you want to label people as hypocrites over unrelated topics.

 

[96Firebird]

I'm talking about the tricks the companies play, not about the 460FTW not having a warranty. Maybe you misread my post, or maybe I worded it weird. I'm just saying, when Nvidia had the 460FTW cards included in benchmarks, everyone was up in arms. And that card had a warranty, no matter how long it was. Now that the 6990 is reviewed with the switch flipped, which was thought to void the warranty at the time of review, its not a big deal? I'd say the 6990 dealio is worse, but who am I to say. That's hypocritical to me...

But we can continue this conversation elsewhere, if need be. And apoppin brought up comparing the 460FTW fiasco to this stunt, I was just continuing the thought...

i remember that there was a massive outcry on this forum when Ryan Smith included overclocked GTX 460 results - and EVGA still warranties that card. AnandTech also used overclocked 6990 results as i did and no one said anything.

 

[apoppin]

I'm talking about the tricks the companies play, not about the 460FTW not having a warranty. Maybe you misread my post, or maybe I worded it weird. I'm just saying, when Nvidia had the 460FTW cards included in benchmarks, everyone was up in arms. And that card had a warranty, no matter how long it was. Now that the 6990 is reviewed with the switch flipped, which was thought to void the warranty at the time of review, its not a big deal? I'd say the 6990 dealio is worse, but who am I to say. That's hypocritical to me...

But we can continue this conversation elsewhere, if need be. And apoppin brought up comparing the 460FTW fiasco to this stunt, I was just continuing the thought...

i am looking for suggestions as to what to do for future testing of the HD 6990. What IS its stock setting?

According to AMD's own site "factory settings" are warrantied. So that begs the question, WtH is BIOS position No2 and is it NOT a factory setting?
:\

When i test - let's say another dual GPU card comes out - logic would dictate that i test reference HD 6990s at reference (warrantied) settings - not at the UNsupported overclocked BIOS no2 position.

Or what do you guys say? There is no time to test at every *possible* setting.
:|

AND a little *clarification*, please:

AT the time of my review, i was under the impression that the Bios position No2 was warrantied. Now AMD'S PR has come out clearly to say that Position No 2 is unsupported. HOWEVER they point you to their site which still says "only factory settings are supported"
- they are letting themselves in for something bad with such unclear language on the site itself.
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6990/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6990-overview.aspx#4

DAMAGES CAUSED BY USE OF YOUR AMD GRAPHICS PROCESSOR OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION OR IN EXCESS OF FACTORY SETTINGS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER YOUR AMD PRODUCT WARRANTY AND MAY NOT BE COVERED BY YOUR SYSTEM MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY.

Is BIOS Position No2 "in excess of factory settings"? AMD created the switch, the BIOS and the yellow tape at their own factory.

Do you see any potential legal issues with the above wording? They should simply state, "NO WARRANTY FOR BREAKING THE TAPE!" - if that is what they really mean
(imo, of course)

 

[badb0y]

What's competing with a 6990 right now? A 5970? lol...

 

[apoppin]

What about future testing? 5970 is EoL'd

 

[Mistwalker]

...but my view on it is that this is no different than reviewing an unlocked CPU and testing both the stock clocks (which is covered by warranty) and then overclocking it by "flipping the multiplier bits" in the BIOS.

In this sense you are very much reviewing the product for all that it represents to a would-be customer from the performance standpoint.

I don't hold it against any reviewer that they OC their CPU samples, voiding the warranty, to show us performance possibilities. I don't hold it against you that you flipped the switch to show us the same for the HD6990.

The gray area of course would presumably come into play when you had to make a "buy" or "don't buy" recommendation at the end of the review...and for that part of it I think it is only fair and expected of you to factor in the loss of value from the loss of warranty when OC'ing.

Again no different than a CPU review that is heavily factoring in the OC'ability of the CPU in deriving their value-based recommendations IMO.

This sounds very reasonable to me. People reading reviews of hardware want to know how it performs from a tech perspective (both at stock and otherwise), and what kind of value they can expect from a consumer standpoint (including points like warranty, overclockability, etc.)

Bench both, factor in manufacturer support in your conclusions. Too much performance data is far better than too little...

 

[tincart]

i am looking for suggestions as to what to do for future testing of the HD 6990. What IS its stock setting?

A) A card directly from AMD or any vendor that does not explicitly warranty the AUSUM switch should be tested without AUSUM mode.

B) A card from a vendor such as XFX that *explicitly states they warranty AUSUM* should have the card tested with AUSUM.

This will exhibit the difference between the quality of the product type A and product type B. Companies that are willing to stand behind the switch can and will get a slightly better showing.

 

[96Firebird]

That works for the round-up type reviews, where different cards using the same chip are reviewed against each other. But I think apoppin is wondering which results to include in his reviews against other chips. I guess that would mean it is an AMD card, so no flipped switch results? Can the 6990 be OC'd at all without flipping the switch?