[HN Gopher] How many AMD RX 7900 XTX's are defective?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How many AMD RX 7900 XTX's are defective?
        
       Author : ingve
       Score  : 41 points
       Date   : 2023-01-11 21:50 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.jeffgeerling.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.jeffgeerling.com)
        
       | wzy wrote:
       | Does this problem extend to the 7900 XT?
        
         | snarfy wrote:
         | Apparently not.                   "... The reference model for
         | the step-down Radeon RX 7900 XT appear to be fine as well." [1]
         | 
         | [1] - https://www.pcworld.com/article/1446335/amd-confirms-
         | radeon-...
        
       | pifm_guy wrote:
       | Heat pipes - the large copper tubes between hot chips and
       | heatsinks - are actually hollow and usually filled with some
       | liquid/gas mixture. That's often butane or something with a
       | lowish boiling temperature at lowish pressures.
       | 
       | They work by having the liquid boil at the hot end, the gas flow
       | along the pipe, condense back to a liquid at the cold end, and
       | then the liquid flow back.
       | 
       | That last step, the liquid flowing back, is the critical one.
       | With gravity, the liquid can gush back really fast, and loads of
       | heat can be transferred.
       | 
       | But if the card is the wrong way up, then it relies on the liquid
       | wicking back along some clothlike material coating the inside of
       | the pipe. That's a far slower process. Therefore the heat that
       | can be dissipated this way is much lower.
       | 
       | That's why heat pipe performance is dramatically affected by
       | orientation.
       | 
       | The designers of this card will have been aware of that, but
       | likely decided a small performance hit for sustained workloads
       | was probably worth it.
        
         | onli wrote:
         | It's not a small performance hit. The card is throttling a lot
         | and ramping up the fans up to 1000RPM more than usual because
         | cooling fails completely. There were report about cards failing
         | while testing this (e.g. in the der8auer video), but ofc it's
         | not possible to be sure that the card broke because of this.
         | It's possible though.
         | 
         | This is not an expected failure mode the engineers would have
         | been okay with even if it did not kill cards. No one would be
         | okay with the heatpipe drying up like this.
        
           | formerly_proven wrote:
           | The card der8auer had which failed was very clearly a VRM
           | failure.
        
             | onli wrote:
             | * * *
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | The thing is that the vapor chamber is working perfectly fine
         | upside down in most of these cards. It sounds like a
         | manufacturing problem not a design flaw.
        
       | formerly_proven wrote:
       | As per der8auer and GamersNexus, AMD claims to know which batches
       | of cards have underfilled vapor chambers yet at the same time
       | refuses to recall them and wants customers to RMA instead.
        
       | causality0 wrote:
       | _AMD originally stated that 110degC junction temps were normal,
       | but seemed to back off that statement as more evidence_
       | 
       | Letting the marketing assholes control how you respond to a
       | crisis is a great way to destroy your credibility forever.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | crote wrote:
         | I think part of the issue is that silicon is _intentionally_
         | being run increasingly hotter over the last few years.
         | 
         | The temperature sensors have gotten good enough that the
         | hardware can auto-boost right up to the physical limits. The
         | card will essentially "overclock" itself until it either 1)
         | hits a temperature limit, or 2) hits a power draw limit.
         | 
         | A high temperature _is indeed_ normal, and customer support  /
         | marketing is aware of this. You have to look at the power drawn
         | to reach that temperature to determine if there is a cooling
         | issue, but such technical details are probably lost on most
         | low-level CS folks.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | dhruvdh wrote:
         | 110-degree junction temperatures are indeed nothing to worry
         | about, it's just the card shouldn't be throttling and reach
         | these temperatures at these frequencies and power draw.
         | 
         | When a new product is released, it is common for there to be a
         | learning curve for support in terms of what is normal and what
         | is not. They are not engineers.
         | 
         | This is just an unfortunate coincidence - batches were tested
         | in vertical orientation, which is normal for test benches, but
         | most users use the card in horizontal orientation.
         | 
         | Orientation affecting temperatures is unexpected and
         | unintuitive, so this was missed. Cause is rumoured to be
         | insufficient coolant in vapor chamber for affected batches.
         | 
         | Please don't read too much into this low-effort rant. I don't
         | blame the author, it's okay to be frustrated when a big
         | purchase doesn't go their way, but if you have a large
         | following you should be more mindful of your words.
        
           | Sweepi wrote:
           | The cause is no longer a Rumor, there has been an official
           | statement by AMD:
           | 
           | "It all comes down to a small batch of our vapor chamber
           | acually have an issue - not enough water."
        
           | jjulius wrote:
           | >This is just an unfortunate coincidence - batches were
           | tested in vertical orientation, which is normal for test
           | benches, but most users use the card in horizontal
           | orientation.
           | 
           | Why would you choose to test your product in a manner that is
           | completely opposite from how most people would use it?
           | Granted, I'm asking from a place of ignorance, but that just
           | seems... dumb. I'd be curious to learn why my perspective
           | might be wrong.
        
       | pifm_guy wrote:
       | If you really need that last few percent of performance, just get
       | a 90 degree pcie adapter so you can run the card at its most
       | efficient angle ...
       | 
       | Hardly seems something to complain about - I mean it does work in
       | all orientations.
       | 
       | Will you next complain that cigarette lighters burn your fingers
       | if you use them upside down?
        
         | omegote wrote:
         | The standard position for graphics card has been horizontal,
         | for many, many years. I don't think the standard position for a
         | cigarrete lighter is upside down, to begin with.
         | 
         | Next, for your "solution" to work you need a special case that
         | allows for the card to be installed vertically, which is not
         | common.
        
         | sbierwagen wrote:
         | >just get a 90 degree pcie adapter
         | 
         | And also buy a second PC case that actually has the slots for a
         | 90 degree mount? Otherwise you'll need to take a hacksaw to the
         | back of your computer.
        
       | shmerl wrote:
       | Better to use custom models anyway.
        
       | morjom wrote:
       | a decently known PC hardware overclocking channel, der8auer, did
       | a few hands on investigative videos on these kind of cards that I
       | found interesting. maybe you will too. they do content in both
       | english and german.
       | 
       | https://youtube.com/@der8auer-en
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-11 23:00 UTC)