Not really. AMD had to push the clock too high and apparently didn't do proper testing after that. Some samples have rather high leakage which makes the matters worse. While minor issue things can go bad if all stars align properly. They wouldn't fix things if they didn't need fixing. Also they will introduce mode that keeps the power usage below 150W and I assume it will enforce 75W for both connectors. That mode will lower the performance a bit though. It's a good thing that AMD acted and made the fix to make sure things will work well. They handled this pretty well.

They did handle it really well. I think if they had tested more they could have released the cards with 0.05-0.1v lower voltage and keep the cards in line better, but this is just my thought. Of course with overclocking the problem would have risen again.

Am I wrong to assume that when techpowerup measured 165w average draw from combined PCI-E/6Pin that they were talking about how much the card was drawing? They instead talked about how much heat was being dissipated? ... Like yeah, we get it, TDP is thermal design power -- it's been mentioned before on this forum plenty of times. Regardless to how people are using the term, the RX480 still typically draws 165w in gaming and the GTX 1070 typically draws 145w and yet it's 40% faster. And it wouldn't really be that big of an issue, except that AMD is playing weird marketing games with the TDP numbers, differentiating TDP and GPU core power + the whole 2.8x perf/w claim. The Fury Nano typically draws 185w and is faster than the RX480 so how the hell they got 2.8x perf/w is beyond me, probably some specific tessellation based benchmark. I mean Polaris was marketed for the past 6 months as some break through in power for AMD. It's pretty ironic that the chip ships with a power problem, especially when they had hardware as early as March or whenever they ran that Hitman demo on it. And it's not like this is one sided. The same questions about the TDP perf/w numbers came up with both the release of Maxwell and Pascal. The only difference is Nvidia actually puts the stupid metrics they are measuring with on the side of their graphs. With Pascal it was like HGEMM/w or some number no gamer cares about. Unfortunately most of the tech press and forum users just see a graph and run to the forums to post their nonsense, good or bad.

TDP came about for OEMs building machines. It told them what the maximum heat a component would create so they could build proper cooling based on that specification. AMD/Intel/Nvidia all have different ways of labeling it (average/max/etc) but it is all the same. Can TDP and amount of actual power be connected? It can, but it isn't something that can be used visa/versa. If AMD says 150w TDP for 480, that is for the amount of heat produced by the card and what the cooler is presumably designed to be able to dissipate without overheating. If it is 150w TDP and they put a 300w dissipating cooler on there it means the cooler can dissipate the heat better than the 150w cooler. Most AIB partner coolers will be better than the 150w TDP for the chip allowing for lower fan speed, cooler numbers, or higher clock speed. But the amount of actual power the card uses isn't TDP.

TDP came about for OEMs building machines. It told them what the maximum heat a component would create so they could build proper cooling based on that specification. AMD/Intel/Nvidia all have different ways of labeling it (average/max/etc) but it is all the same. Can TDP and amount of actual power be connected? It can, but it isn't something that can be used visa/versa. If AMD says 150w TDP for 480, that is for the amount of heat produced by the card and what the cooler is presumably designed to be able to dissipate without overheating. If it is 150w TDP and they put a 300w dissipating cooler on there it means the cooler can dissipate the heat better than the 150w cooler. Most AIB partner coolers will be better than the 150w TDP for the chip allowing for lower fan speed, cooler numbers, or higher clock speed. But the amount of actual power the card uses isn't TDP.

I understand this, but again it seems a little pedantic. The issue is that the RX 480 draws 165w. Cyclone3D originally stated:

So those complaining that it uses more than 150w and referencing a stated TDP don't know what they are talking about anyway.

Those people are incorrectly using the word TDP instead of power draw, a problem I guess, but it's not changing the fact that the card is drawing 165w when gaming, which is what the argument is based on.

Those people are incorrectly using the word TDP instead of power draw

If by "power draw" you mean "maximum sustained power draw" (from now on power draw) then yes. People are using the term TDP as a synonymous for power draw, and there is a good reason for that. They are same in absolute value. Because well defined TDP is equal to maximum heat produced by GPU, and this in turn is equal to GPU maximum sustained power draw. Ie. TDP = power draw. No one, absolutely no one, not even AIBs or system builders, give a **** about the original meaning of TDP, ie. a required cooling system dissipation power as communicated by the company. Why? Because in practice TDP has become a highly arbitrary number. And as such has traditionally been used in a dishonest fashion as a PR tool by pretty much everyone, AMD and Nvidia including. A company can easily build 170W GPU, put 6-pin and call it 150W TDP for PR purposes. And if they are cheap enough, they can just as easily put 150W cooler and call it a day. Oh but will the whole thing go in flames because 170W > 150W? Of course it won't. Because the entire graphics card effectively becomes a cooler helping that cheapo 150W cooler to dissipate whole 170W. In fact something similar just happened...

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Power-Consumption-Concerns-Fixed-1671-Driver/Power-Testing-