Warning: XFX's silent revision on the 6970

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP, thanks for the information. This helps me partially understand why the XFX 6970 2GB card I bought a couple of months back didn't work right. I should have known the card wasn't up to snuff with a reference design from the fact only one of the DVI outputs was dual-link and the other was single-link.

Corner cutting may be good for the manufacturer but certainly isn't good for the consumer. Sucks too as I loved my XFX GTX 285. It was a solid reference based card which worked properly and still is working properly for the new owner.
 
I should have known the card wasn't up to snuff with a reference design from the fact only one of the DVI outputs was dual-link and the other was single-link.

IIRC, that's part of the reference design as well.
 
OP, thanks for the information. This helps me partially understand why the XFX 6970 2GB card I bought a couple of months back didn't work right. I should have known the card wasn't up to snuff with a reference design from the fact only one of the DVI outputs was dual-link and the other was single-link.

-1, All 6970s and 6950s share this limitation, there are tons of posters complaining about this.
 
Technically, XFX doesn't "make" anything as it is Foxconn I believe that actually manufactures the whole thing, but XFX does have AMD products... otherwise how could I get a XFX 6970?

Yes we know this...from the tooth fairy?
 
Yes we know this...from the tooth fairy?

if you really wanted to get technical, it's Pine groups' own factories that handle the manuf portion. Of all the AIB partners, the only ones likely to use Foxconn are MSI and Gigabyte; as ASUS has their own facilities; Sapphire is part of PCPartner, an umbrella corp that also manufs. nVidia GPUs under another brand; Diamond, I'm sure they contract to PCPartner; HIS, Powercolor, & VisionTek, I am unsure of, though I believe Powercolor also has with own manuf. facilities.
 
Well, i don't know if Sapphire did something to the cards i got or not ( redesigned vrm vs the rev 1.1 ) ... but the ones i got, with the new revised PCB can clock to 950Mhz with no voltage tweaking ... so ... i think the vrm is doing a good job there...
 
yeah, the official 1.1 revision is supposed to be just as beefy as the 1.0 version, HOWEVER, XFX modified the 1.1 revision with fewer power phases, and likely cheaper VRM/M.O.S.FETs, lol...
 
... is that true ? I mean ... are there proofs of that? It's a non-sense move ... :x

( i'm not doubting you ... it's just ... that sounds so ridiculous to be true that i just face-palmed ... who the hell does that decision ? )
 
This little tidbit of information I did not know. I was under the impression the 6900 series would be automatically setup to run Dual-Link DVI as the GTX 470/480/570/580 are.

Thanks for the info. I need to do more studying...

IIRC, that's part of the reference design as well.

-1, All 6970s and 6950s share this limitation, there are tons of posters complaining about this.
 

The problem is the card is not an AMD reference at all. If you look at both designs there are a BIOS switch and AMD logo on the bottom. I'm actually really mad. I bought it thinking it would be the reference design but it came on Sat and found out mine is exactly like OP. I contacted the XFX member here but no word yet, hope there is something. Really upset since I like XFX but want only reference design.
 
XFX is now put on my Do not Buy list. Thank goodness I did not go for them when i was building.
 
As it stands, there is absolutely no way for you to know what card you will be getting. The only way to verify whether you are getting a "real", original reference design, or the new V1.1 variant, is by physically inspecting the PCB. This requires opening up the box and card, therefore rendering returns more difficult. In my case, I would be subjected to a 15% restocking fee plus shipping to return the card to ++++. All-in-all, a whopping 78$ to return a product that was misrepresented by XFX.

Get a lawyer, today.
 
So, i removed the cooler of my new sapphire's ...

The PCB rev 2 has less phases than the rev 1 ... although this Sapphire has 2 smaller inductors in the rear of the card ...

DSC00560.jpg


DSC00561.jpg



And away goes the dual bios

DSC00562.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heres a pic of the powercolor PCS+ with the same PCB but with dual bios ... although it does not have those extra 2 phases in the rear of the card...

See image here


Btw, people see a missing inductor and automatically say it's worst ... but we should understand this PCB better... still can't figure what those smaller R47 inductors do ...

What's really weird... is that you have the capacitator & the mosfet ... only missing the inductor to complete the phase ... weirdness ... maybe those two smaller R47's have something to do with it? :x
 
Last edited:
OP is right, XFX product management totally dropped the ball here. A revision change usually only requires an updated sku if the changes are significant. The problem is that the changes here are very, VERY significant, yet they decided to use the same sku.

I haven't read 100% of this thread, so I'm not sure what resolution you're at, but if I were you I would not stop until XFX rectifies this issue.
 
Upon further inspection, XFX decided to take an even CHEAPER route than other AMD partners, wow. It's common knowledge that newer revisions usually mean cheaper cards (well, to the manufacturers), but man this is crazy. XFX didn't even include the BIOS switch on this card. Talk about severe corner-cutting. What's worse is that this card costs MORE than there reference card at www.newegg,com, haha. Pretty sad. Good thing I decided never to buy XFX products years ago.
 
I wish the blogs and hard op would post this on the front site. I would love to know what XFX has to say. This reminds me of the OCZ SSD switch. I will not buy XFX again.
 
I guess this sucks for me too, as I just bought an XFX 6970. I looked over the card and it doe not have the dual bios switch or "AMD" printed on the PCB on the bottom. I'm going to email them and see what kind of response I get back.
 
... but ... just one question for all of you ... why are you being so "extreme" with the idea that " this pcb sucks" ? Is it because it's missing the dual bios and 1 missing inductor?

Or are you saying that it's a worst performer?!
I really don't get it ...
 
... but ... just one question for all of you ... why are you being so "extreme" with the idea that " this pcb sucks" ? Is it because it's missing the dual bios and 1 missing inductor?

Or are you saying that it's a worst performer?!
I really don't get it ...

The biggest grudge I hold is shipping a non reference PCB under a model number that indicates reference designs.

The rest is fluff... but yeah, usually, cheaper components means bad performer, but the new vram chips are supposed to be better. No Bios switch was a sucker though.
 
Tiger...

a) this is the new reference card. Sapphire also gives a SKU to this card that is the same than the old reference... so this is the new "reality" ... and all vendors will start updating their stocks as they go.

b) Why do you say it's cheaper components? They are using new Texas Instruments Digital Mosfets ... These mosfets were supposed to be on the card in the first place... due to low yields they had to go with Volterra ...

I'm not trying to say that this is a better or worst card... i'm just trying to understand what facts you are using ( not you in particularly but all users that say this is cheaper and worst ) to conclude that this PCB is worst then the 1st Gen... I'm also trying to understand it by myself, but i couldn't get anywhere, that's why i'm asking about the facts ... just that i and all users that have this doubts, can understand what's going on :)

I must say that these cards will clock to 950Mhz without any voltage increase... Not bad...
 
Tiger...

a) this is the new reference card. Sapphire also gives a SKU to this card that is the same than the old reference... so this is the new "reality" ... and all vendors will start updating their stocks as they go.


The new reference still has the bios switch, mine didn't (look at the picture)
 
Well... the bios switch is a extra that some vendors may loose in order to get lower prices on the cards... i really don't care about dual bios :)

Btw, i've been checking and the new ti digital mosfets have a max temp of 150ºC what's great...
 
Tiger...

a) this is the new reference card. Sapphire also gives a SKU to this card that is the same than the old reference... so this is the new "reality" ... and all vendors will start updating their stocks as they go.

b) Why do you say it's cheaper components? They are using new Texas Instruments Digital Mosfets ... These mosfets were supposed to be on the card in the first place... due to low yields they had to go with Volterra ...

I'm not trying to say that this is a better or worst card... i'm just trying to understand what facts you are using ( not you in particularly but all users that say this is cheaper and worst ) to conclude that this PCB is worst then the 1st Gen... I'm also trying to understand it by myself, but i couldn't get anywhere, that's why i'm asking about the facts ... just that i and all users that have this doubts, can understand what's going on :)

I must say that these cards will clock to 950Mhz without any voltage increase... Not bad...

yeah, I agree with TigerLord. This may be based off of the reference design, but it's not the reference design anymore. AMD's reference design may use better M.O.S.FETs and voltage regulator, however, XFX's spin on it likely doesn't (it uses a CHiL voltage regulator and who knows what [since TL's pic had them still covered with the thermal pads] for the driver/controller M.O.S.FETs).

As for the BIOS switch, yeah, I wouldn't be too worried over that, but it's just something I'd like to have :)
 
What's the problem with the Chil voltage regulator?

Here's a GTX480 Lightning with the same regulator

gtx480-chil-chl-8266-voltage-regulator.jpg


But i'm still to see a new revision of the reference card with all the phases ... Powercolor, XFX and Sapphire don't have it :x where the hell can we get a amd reference card, from amd itself?
 
Well... the bios switch is a extra that some vendors may loose in order to get lower prices on the cards... i really don't care about dual bios :)

Btw, i've been checking and the new ti digital mosfets have a max temp of 150ºC what's great...

My main problem was that in spite of MASSIVE changes to the PCB`s design, XFX did nothing to let us know things were different, not even bothering for a model or sku change, or an announcement.

That's the source of my annoyance and why I will not do business with them. If you can't be transparent and forthcoming, I'll spend my 400$ at another vendor that can.
 
What's the problem with the Chil voltage regulator?

Here's a GTX480 Lightning with the same regulator

But i'm still to see a new revision of the reference card with all the phases ... Powercolor, XFX and Sapphire don't have it :x where the hell can we get a amd reference card, from amd itself?

no one ever mentioned any problem with the CHiL regulator... don't take it on yourself to make such problems, lol :p

EDIT: ah, I see, I lumped it in with the unknown M.O.S.FET sentance...?
 
eheheh don't understand this as me making it a problem ... i'm just trying to understand, really :)
 
We would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this revision change has caused anyone. I would like to clear up a few misconceptions about the revision 1.1 6970. The PCB used on this card is an AMD design that other manufacturers are using on their 6970s as well. It does not have an AMD logo on the PCB as the circuit board is made by us to their design. The components used on the second revision cards are not inferior in their ability to perform to the first revision. If there are any questions or concerns in regards to modifying the cooling solution to this or ANY other XFX product we would love the opportunity to discuss it with our customers. You can reach us at 800-880-3225 or through our support page at www.XFXFORCE.com.
 
We would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this revision change has caused anyone. I would like to clear up a few misconceptions about the revision 1.1 6970. The PCB used on this card is an AMD design that other manufacturers are using on their 6970s as well. It does not have an AMD logo on the PCB as the circuit board is made by us to their design. The components used on the second revision cards are not inferior in their ability to perform to the first revision. If there are any questions or concerns in regards to modifying the cooling solution to this or ANY other XFX product we would love the opportunity to discuss it with our customers. You can reach us at 800-880-3225 or through our support page at www.XFXFORCE.com.

Thanks to the heads up. I wouldn't mind seeing these two versions benched head-to-head though I suspect if the changes affected anything it may be overclocking and longevity. The later of which, isn't a huge issue with the double lifetime warranty.
 
it took a week for you guys to reposed to this? that is pretty slow.
 
It took a week for the right marketspeak//legalese terms to be found.

Don't want to be an ass, but the problem still exists that for some people the bios switch//proper hole placement//backplate are part of buying considerations, and not changing the part number can and does make them feel shortchanged//wronged.

That will just be an experience notch for XFX tho (and yes even if they are given a change for a free of charge change of the model or cooling model, the sour after taste will persist due to the time loss at the very least and that is something noone wants to asociate with their products)
 
We would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this revision change has caused anyone. I would like to clear up a few misconceptions about the revision 1.1 6970. The PCB used on this card is an AMD design that other manufacturers are using on their 6970s as well. It does not have an AMD logo on the PCB as the circuit board is made by us to their design. The components used on the second revision cards are not inferior in their ability to perform to the first revision. If there are any questions or concerns in regards to modifying the cooling solution to this or ANY other XFX product we would love the opportunity to discuss it with our customers. You can reach us at 800-880-3225 or through our support page at www.XFXFORCE.com.
Props for responding to this issue heads on. However, I would like to ask why a different SKU wasn't specified? I realize that board manufacturers often revise designs, however your revised version of the 6970 makes quite a few substantial changes over the 1.0 release, with the removal of the BIOS switch, backplate and different mounting holes. Considering that some of these (particularly the BIOS switch, as I wouldn't buy a 6970 without that option) are notable features, why was a new SKU not issued to avoid this confusion in the first place?
 
guy's... been trying my sapphire in a friends system ( i'm still assembling my water loop ) ...

The cards were able to go as high as 960Mhz without any voltage increase ...

Not bad for a "crippled" pcb huh? :)
 
I think you missed the point. While I did observe "cheaper" components being used, the problem lied with the fact the same card that was sold for months was drastically changed without a SKU/model change to alert customers to that fact. I was not alone with this problem.

EVERY other vendor either addressed this design change by either changing the name of the product (SR2), sku or model. XFX did not. Rizen has asked the question, I'm very curious to see what they answer.
 
Props for responding to this issue heads on. However, I would like to ask why a different SKU wasn't specified? I realize that board manufacturers often revise designs, however your revised version of the 6970 makes quite a few substantial changes over the 1.0 release, with the removal of the BIOS switch, backplate and different mounting holes. Considering that some of these (particularly the BIOS switch, as I wouldn't buy a 6970 without that option) are notable features, why was a new SKU not issued to avoid this confusion in the first place?

I think you missed the point. While I did observe "cheaper" components being used, the problem lied with the fact the same card that was sold for months was drastically changed without a SKU/model change to alert customers to that fact. I was not alone with this problem.

EVERY other vendor either addressed this design change by either changing the name of the product (SR2), sku or model. XFX did not. Rizen has asked the question, I'm very curious to see what they answer.

+1 for wanting an answer to this question, and I'd also like to provide some perspective. XFX is the only AMD manufacturer that warrants aftermarket cooling with its double-lifetime policy. With this decision, XFX would presumably support an enthusiast's endeavors, including the replacement of the stock heatsink.

I pose these questions to XFX:
How do the decisions made by XFX in naming models mesh with an enthusiast's goals? Does XFX have the enthusiast community's best interests in mind when making decisions like these? I would like to remind anyone contemplating these questions that actions speak louder than words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top