[KitGuru]XFX offer 6990 warranty for OC mode

[apoppin]

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?

Exactly. i was investigating this. If you use CCC, even Power Tune is locked down so that you cannot increase it. i haven't had any time to try other utilities since i got my GTX 550 Ti yesterday (UPS waylaid the previous one) so i am benching it now.

However, i have a feeling we shall be testing HD 6990 again soon - and as you know it is for an evaluation where TIME is *limited*. In that case, at ABT we usually pick reference settings - and compare apples to apples. The card likely to be featured will not be the HD 6990 as it already had its launch article (with OD, unsupported settings :'( )

Later articles will have no such issues evaluating multi-GPU (i will be doing at least a 4-part series on CF vs SLI) and there will be no time constraints and overclocking will in fact be the focus.

what is fair?
:\

 

[MentalIlness]

In my opinion, stock means the way they are unboxed. If a card has a certain factory overclock, and it comes out of the box that way, then it is stock to me.

Screw the flip-switch on the HD 6990. If you want to have an overclocked review, then just overclock it. You'd probably get more out of it by manual oc'ing anyway.

apoppin.....Absolutely love your reviews though. You test a lot of games. And I think a lot of other sites should follow your testing ethic. :thumbsup:

 

[Lonyo]

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.
:\

Many (most?) websites use overclocked results of the card they are testing when they review that card.
What they don't do is used overclocked results of that card in reviews of OTHER cards, typically.

 

[tincart]

what is fair?
:\

No switch.

 

[96Firebird]

Screw the flip-switch on the HD 6990. If you want to have an overclocked review, then just overclock it. You'd probably get more out of it by manual oc'ing anyway.

From what I understand, if I have read apoppin's post correctly, the 6990 cannot be overclocked using CCC or PowerTune. Perhaps Afterburner can? I'm sure someone would be able to figure it out without flipping the switch...

 

[apoppin]

From what I understand, if I have read apoppin's post correctly, the 6990 cannot be overclocked using CCC or PowerTune. Perhaps Afterburner can? I'm sure someone would be able to figure it out without flipping the switch...

i am not 100% certain as i got derailed by the later arrival of my GTX 550 Ti.

At any rate, i would never bother to overclock a stock HD 6990 without flipping the switch - i believe ANY enthusiast would flip that switch if they desired more than the 375W position of BIOS Switch No1.

You flip the switch and then you overclock - imo
:whiste:

At any rate, i would not include overclocked results at all in a review of another card. So i guess you guys are saying that i should use only BIOS position No1 (375W; factory warrantied), correct?

 

[Elfear]

At any rate, i would not include overclocked results at all in a review of another card. So i guess you guys are saying that i should use only BIOS position No1 (375W; factory warrantied), correct?

For the review of another card (can't imagine which one that might be :hmm I'd agree with this. Just leave it in position one. Most of the other reviews I've seen do it this way where the card of the hour has overclocked results included (usually in the latter part of the review, not really in the main benchmark pages) but its competitors are left at stock. Everyone reading the article knows both cards can be overclocked but when a brand new card shows up it's important for readers to have an idea of how far it can go.

I also like the rare reviews where a sample of each card is taken, all are overclocked to the max, and then benchmarks are run. Generally those are preferred sometime after launch day.

 

[apoppin]

For the review of another card (can't imagine which one that might be :hmm I'd agree with this. Just leave it in position one. Most of the other reviews I've seen do it this way where the card of the hour has overclocked results included (usually in the latter part of the review, not really in the main benchmark pages) but its competitors are left at stock. Everyone reading the article knows both cards can be overclocked but when a brand new card shows up it's important for readers to have an idea of how far it can go.

I also like the rare reviews where a sample of each card is taken, all are overclocked to the max, and then benchmarks are run. Generally those are preferred sometime after launch day.

cool. Thank-you. it is reasonable

BtW, i am planning for that "rare" review that you describe as soon as i finish with CF vs SLI. i prefer to use all WHQL drivers for those kinds of evaluations to give the drivers a bit of time to mature. And then i like to revisit that same testing in about 6 months.

It also looks like there may be some interest in new CPUs coming.
:awe:

 

[Idontcare]

At any rate, i would not include overclocked results at all in a review of another card. So i guess you guys are saying that i should use only BIOS position No1 (375W; factory warrantied), correct?

If the former is your review policy and philosophy then I'd agree that the latter is what you must do in order for your actions to be consistent with your policy.

I don't see any other way around the boundary conditions of your logic tree.

 

[apoppin]

If the former is your review policy and philosophy then I'd agree that the latter is what you must do in order for your actions to be consistent with your policy.

I don't see any other way around the boundary conditions of your logic tree.

Policy is always subject to revision. i serve the readers of my reviews.

Everything is compromise to some extent. i'd love to spend a lot more time with my evaluations. If i do that, the results tend to become outdated; we can only focus narrowly or very broadly at times and still be timely.

The way that i can see "around it", is to include only the BIOS No1 position for HD 6990 for launch articles and to go in-depth later on with overclocked testing.

i really appreciate your thoughts. Thank-you

 

[Red Storm]

Many (most?) websites use overclocked results of the card they are testing when they review that card.
What they don't do is used overclocked results of that card in reviews of OTHER cards, typically.

I agree with this, and that's why I was one of those who were upset with Anandtech (not Nvidia) on the whole 460 fiasco.

apoppin I can tell you that if I were reading a review on the 6990, and it didn't have anything to say about the AUSUM switch then I would end up going to find another site's review to get that extra bit of info I'm looking for. I say show and tell all there is, but call out the company in your review if there is justification.

 

[3DVagabond]

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...

Are you asking me to step outside?

OK, I understand what you are saying a bit better. You are saying both acts by the companies are unethical. Fair enough. I know apoppin brought it up first. I responded to his post as well. I think it was that post, by him. I responded to one of his posts, anyway.

What everyone needs to understand is AMD doesn't warranty your card. AMD can say whatever they like. It's up to the individual board partners what you get for a warranty. 2yrs., 3yrs., lifetime, double lifetime, whatever it is, it's supplied by Sapphire, Gigabyte, XFX, etc...

XFX has come out and said they will warranty their cards. I'm sure with apoppin's connections, he can contact the other board partners asking their position. Let us know any who won't honor the warranty, or won't qualify their position on it. Put that in the review. Put it in big bold print. Name, names. If he wants he can have a "Hall of 6990 Shame", where those who won't honor the warranties are listed. Make it the wallpaper/background/theme for ABT.

We need to stop telling people they don't have a warranty though, until we know. That's not justice either. That's propaganda and scare tactics. AMD not warrantying it is half the story. We need the rest of the story.

 

[3DVagabond]

The way that i can see "around it", is to include only the BIOS No1 position for HD 6990 for launch articles and to go in-depth later on with overclocked testing.

i really appreciate your thoughts. Thank-you

Are you talking launch articles of other cards? For example the GTX590, when it comes out? If so, then yes, basic stock position for the 6990. Isn't that more or less standard in the industry?

If you are talking not fully testing cards for their release articles, I disagree. If, for example, the gtx590 has their own BIOS switch it should be tested. Whether it's warrantied or not, would need to be revealed, but I'd like to know what it does. I want to know what it's likely to do performance, temp, and power usage wise.

Now, if there's an UBER HD6990 1Ghz Toxic/Black/XX/Greek God edition, don't use that in the GTX590 release reviews.

 

[Keysplayr]

Bench as card comes out of the box and supported with retail warranty. So for example, if that XFX 6990 warrants the use of the switch, then by all means flip the switch for your bench. If it's truly unsupported, then don't flip it. Factory overclocked out of the box is fine as well.

 

[Ghiedo27]

On a $150 card I think it makes a lot of sense to just plug it in and test it. For $600+ cards I think everyone wants to know both what it does right out of the box and what it does overclocked (with the stock cooling solution).

There's room in the text to point out warranty issues, but I think the benches themselves are best left simple.

 

[3DVagabond]

Bench as card comes out of the box and supported with retail warranty. So for example, if that XFX 6990 warrants the use of the switch, then by all means flip the switch for your bench. If it's truly unsupported, then don't flip it. Factory overclocked out of the box is fine as well.

So, by your logic, no manual O/C'ing of cards or CPU in reviews anymore, because they aren't factory supported.

 

[blanketyblank]

Do you test overclocking results on cards where the AIB doesn't warrant OCing?
If so I think it's fair to test the maximum speed these cards could go same with any NV card that comes out. Ultimately the stock is more important, but it's always nice to see how much power is hiding behind the hood and at what kind of voltage/heat cost.