Berfs1On an off topic note, AMD's 6700 XT is not going to be a reliable card. That card's base clock is at 2300+ MHz. Yes, base clock. That card will degrade super fast.

That would be my concern as well.

Berfs1just a thought, what if we liquid cooled the graphics cards? Maybe the point of diminishing returns is when under load, the GPU hits mid 40s, and the clocks and voltages needed to hit that would be probably the most optimal point before noticeable diminishing returns. NVIDIA had a really good cooler design, then decided "oh yeah lets just overclock the absofuckingshit out of these cards so that amd doesnt stand a chance", which is exactly why NVIDIA's Ampere cards don't have as good of a performance/watt as they could have.

On an off topic note, AMD's 6700 XT is not going to be a reliable card. That card's base clock is at 2300+ MHz. Yes, base clock. That card will degrade super fast.

IIRC since Pascal, keeping the card as cool as possible has had an effect on performance. The cooler the card is, the higher it can boost and the more efficiently it can use the power budget available to it. I think the best cards, like those with waterblocks already on them, are generally overbuilt and have a BIOS that will let the card do more than any other. That doesn't mean it will draw any less power if you keep it cold though...

hatIIRC since Pascal, keeping the card as cool as possible has had an effect on performance. The cooler the card is, the higher it can boost and the more efficiently it can use the power budget available to it. I think the best cards, like those with waterblocks already on them, are generally overbuilt and have a BIOS that will let the card do more than any other. That doesn't mean it will draw any less power if you keep it cold though...

Efficiency increase mildly with lower operating temperature, but overall watercooling a card can only improve clock by 30-45mhz (same power consumption), and that is already taking into account the additional power headroom from removing the stock fans.

Another fun thing about Nvidia top of the line GPU (1080Ti, 2080Ti and 3090) is that they always have XOC BIOS that bypass thermal and power limit, you can flash these BIOS onto your GPU, do some fun benchmark then back to original BIOS for gaming.

Berfs1On an off topic note, AMD's 6700 XT is not going to be a reliable card. That card's base clock is at 2300+ MHz. Yes, base clock. That card will degrade super fast.

What kind of tin foil hats are you guys wearing i wonder. Everything is conspiracy for you people. Are you telling me 6800XT. 6900XT & PS5 are unreliable - their clock base speed is almost 2300 MHZ, heck apart from PS5 all the RDNA2 GPUs boost above 2300MHZ+ in normal usecases.

And i would really like to know when you say degrade super fast, what kind of window are we talking about 1 year, 2 year, or may be 6 months ?

erekThe real king is the GALAX Dual 3090 HOF Limited



this example has Dual GA100 chips, not GA102s

Nicely photoshopped... :D

Berfs1just a thought, what if we liquid cooled the graphics cards? Maybe the point of diminishing returns is when under load, the GPU hits mid 40s, and the clocks and voltages needed to hit that would be probably the most optimal point before noticeable diminishing returns. NVIDIA had a really good cooler design, then decided "oh yeah lets just overclock the absofuckingshit out of these cards so that amd doesnt stand a chance", which is exactly why NVIDIA's Ampere cards don't have as good of a performance/watt as they could have.

On an off topic note, AMD's 6700 XT is not going to be a reliable card. That card's base clock is at 2300+ MHz. Yes, base clock. That card will degrade super fast.

Degrade super fast? I hope you know degradation is based on too much voltage at a certain temperature & use of the chip. Plenty of 6800, 6800xt, 6900xt running all over 2300-2400 out of the box. Not to forget that apparently the yields on the Navi 22 die are pretty amazing meaning the 6700xt might easily go over 2500-2600 with the same voltage. AMD wouldn't design chips to degrade after a few months (besides that would make the power draw insane).

jigar2speedWhat kind of tin foil hats are you guys wearing i wonder. Everything is conspiracy for you people. Are you telling me 6800XT. 6900XT & PS5 are unreliable - their clock base speed is almost 2300 MHZ, heck apart from PS5 all the RDNA2 GPUs boost above 2300MHZ+ in normal usecases.

And i would really like to know when you say degrade super fast, what kind of window are we talking about 1 year, 2 year, or may be 6 months ?

It's part of some smear campaign they got going.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/6900xt-degrades-below-stock-speeds-within-4-weeks.279308/

jigar2speedWhat kind of tin foil hats are you guys wearing i wonder. Everything is conspiracy for you people. Are you telling me 6800XT. 6900XT & PS5 are unreliable - their clock base speed is almost 2300 MHZ, heck apart from PS5 all the RDNA2 GPUs boost above 2300MHZ+ in normal usecases.

And i would really like to know when you say degrade super fast, what kind of window are we talking about 1 year, 2 year, or may be 6 months ?

Relatively speaking, I would bet that most of the 6700 XTs wouldn't last as long as the other RX 6000 GPUs since the 6700XT is clocked significantly higher. By degrade, I would expect at least some of the 6700 XTs that make it into gamers hands to no longer conform to spec in about 6 months to a year of normal gaming loads every day, maybe 4 or more hours a day, basically not "game for 1 day, rest for 6 days", since I know there are those people as well. I do expect there will be significantly more RMA rates for 6700 XTs versus the RX 6800.

This goes for almost anything, CPUs, RAM, etc. In a given generation/process node, there are yields. As an example, I will talk about RX 6000 GPUs as a whole. According to TechPowerUp's GPU database, all RX 6000 GPUs are running TSMC's 7nm node, and 6800+ is using Navi 21, 6700 XT is using Navi 22. But the transistors are the same, just, AMD isn't putting as many in Navi 22. The higher you clock a GPU, the lower yields you will get, that is just how engineering works. This process is called binning, and the GPU processors that can handle the higher speeds won't fail as quickly because while they all degrade at nearly the same rate (in the same generation/process node) there is a spec, and anything that meets spec or exceeds spec will be fine. However, if you spec a GPU w/ a significantly higher clock speed, you increase the silicon quality requirement needed to achieve that, and here is where it can get tricky. It either goes 1 way or the other: either the GPU with lower clock will be super stable and have almost zero failure rate and the GPU with higher clock is stable enough, OR the GPU with lower clock is stable enough, and the GPU with higher clock will have noticeable failure rates. The higher you clock a product, it will be less stable (given the same voltage). Sure, you can go from 2200 MHz to 2300 MHz on the same voltage, it just means you didn't actually need as high a voltage for 2200 MHz. The higher the clock speed, usually more voltage/current, and in the end, you want more cores, not more clock speed. For example, let's say AMD made a Navi GPU with 5120 cores and 1500 MHz core clock speed, that would be many times more reliable than making a Navi GPU with 2560 cores and 3000 MHz core clock speed, because after a certain point, there is diminishing returns with overclocking. There are more factors into play obviously, like cooling, current draw, etc, but all I was saying was, I expect the 6700 XT to have higher failure rates than the rest of the RX 6000 GPUs.

Also, 6800 XT and 6900 XT don't have as high base clocks; 6800XT and 6900XT GPUs are around 1800-1900 MHz base clock, not game clock.

thesmokingmanIt's part of some smear campaign they got going.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/6900xt-degrades-below-stock-speeds-within-4-weeks.279308/

Smear campaign? Um... where are you getting this bullshit from?

thegnomeDegrade super fast? I hope you know degradation is based on too much voltage at a certain temperature & use of the chip. Plenty of 6800, 6800xt, 6900xt running all over 2300-2400 out of the box. Not to forget that apparently the yields on the Navi 22 die are pretty amazing meaning the 6700xt might easily go over 2500-2600 with the same voltage. AMD wouldn't design chips to degrade after a few months (besides that would make the power draw insane).

If yields are better on Navi 22, then alrighty, it won't degrade as quickly as I thought it would. I thought it was running on the same Navi 21 GPU. But yeah, generally speaking, higher clock speeds = higher voltage, and that's why I was saying it would degrade quicker, because of the higher voltage.

Berfs1Relatively speaking, I would bet that most of the 6700 XTs wouldn't last as long as the other RX 6000 GPUs since the 6700XT is clocked significantly higher. By degrade, I would expect at least some of the 6700 XTs that make it into gamers hands to no longer conform to spec in about 6 months to a year of normal gaming loads every day, maybe 4 or more hours a day, basically not "game for 1 day, rest for 6 days", since I know there are those people as well. I do expect there will be significantly more RMA rates for 6700 XTs versus the RX 6800.

This goes for almost anything, CPUs, RAM, etc. In a given generation/process node, there are yields. As an example, I will talk about RX 6000 GPUs as a whole. According to TechPowerUp's GPU database, all RX 6000 GPUs are running TSMC's 7nm node, and 6800+ is using Navi 21, 6700 XT is using Navi 22. But the transistors are the same, just, AMD isn't putting as many in Navi 22. The higher you clock a GPU, the lower yields you will get, that is just how engineering works. This process is called binning, and the GPU processors that can handle the higher speeds won't fail as quickly because while they all degrade at nearly the same rate (in the same generation/process node) there is a spec, and anything that meets spec or exceeds spec will be fine. However, if you spec a GPU w/ a significantly higher clock speed, you increase the silicon quality requirement needed to achieve that, and here is where it can get tricky. It either goes 1 way or the other: either the GPU with lower clock will be super stable and have almost zero failure rate and the GPU with higher clock is stable enough, OR the GPU with lower clock is stable enough, and the GPU with higher clock will have noticeable failure rates. The higher you clock a product, it will be less stable (given the same voltage). Sure, you can go from 2200 MHz to 2300 MHz on the same voltage, it just means you didn't actually need as high a voltage for 2200 MHz. The higher the clock speed, usually more voltage/current, and in the end, you want more cores, not more clock speed. For example, let's say AMD made a Navi GPU with 5120 cores and 1500 MHz core clock speed, that would be many times more reliable than making a Navi GPU with 2560 cores and 3000 MHz core clock speed, because after a certain point, there is diminishing returns with overclocking. There are more factors into play obviously, like cooling, current draw, etc, but all I was saying was, I expect the 6700 XT to have higher failure rates than the rest of the RX 6000 GPUs.

Also, 6800 XT and 6900 XT don't have as high base clocks; 6800XT and 6900XT GPUs are around 1800-1900 MHz base clock, not game clock.


Smear campaign? Um... where are you getting this bullshit from?


If yields are better on Navi 22, then alrighty, it won't degrade as quickly as I thought it would. I thought it was running on the same Navi 21 GPU. But yeah, generally speaking, higher clock speeds = higher voltage, and that's why I was saying it would degrade quicker, because of the higher voltage.

From your bullshit posts.

thesmokingmanFrom your bullshit posts.

Damn, you can't even prove it. Interesting.

Okay, enough. Behave or there will be a thread cleanup and infractions.

Either state something as an opinion and others can respect it, or state a fact with linked evidence. Then stop acting like children over it.