Originally Posted by Domino
Originally Posted by airisom2
Yeah, it looks like they're trying to sugarcoat the temp problems, and they turned a blind eye to the noise. The fact is that they could have used a better cooler, but they were trying to make this card as cheap as possible to maximize profits for their reference cards. It's alright, though. Non-reference designs and aftermarket coolers will make this chip perform the way it should.
This part cracks me up:
95C is the optimal temperature that allows the board to convert its power consumption into meaningful performance for the user. Every single component on the board is designed to run at that temperature throughout the lifetime of the product.
We're not baking cookies, AMD.
How are they sugarcoating anything? The chip's threshold is above 95 c and, correct me if I'm wrong. but have we seen any overclocking results when the temps have exceeded 95 c or does the cooler maintain 95 c?
I just viewed that quote as AMD saying that the card has to run at 95C in order for the chip to efficiently run, which is complete bs, and they're just trying to sugarcoat the bad temps. I know that the card is rated at running at 95C, but the fact is that they could have put on a better reference cooler (modified 7990 ref. cooler) to keep the temps down.
It's like they're trying to say that Hawaii is like a PSU, the closer you get to it's rated wattage, the more efficient it is. What are we going to see next? 80+ Gold graphics cards?