News 4060 Ti graphics card catches fire and melts like an ice cream — user claims they were using it for simple Adobe work and PUBG

[Admin]

A South Korean gamer claims that their RTX 4060 Ti burst into flames while playing a game.

4060 Ti graphics card catches fire and melts like an ice cream — user claims they were using it for simple Adobe work and PUBG : Read more

 

[bit_user]

What's the role of underwriters, in an incident like this? If an organization like UL certifies a product and it catches fire, are they on the hook in any way? Like if the fire is shown to be due to a design flaw that they should've caught?

Or, is the entire value in such a certification simply the sense of security it's meant to give consumers?

 

[King_V]

Forbidden ice-cream.

 

[wakuwaku]

One commenter suggested that the screw with the most damage might have been over-torqued during manufacture, resulting in a short that led to the failure of the VRMs. However, this is pretty unlikely, especially since the GPU has been in use for a couple of years without any issues.

If you had use normal Google Translate, instead of Tom's AI to translate, you would know that the commenter mentioned that possible over-torquing of the screw might have led to the board WARPING, in turn causing a short. Warping of a pcb doesn't immediately lead to a short, heck it may not happen at all depending on tolerances. But the warping can can worsen overtime especially in an environment where the board is hot then cool then hot again in short bursts to medium length bursts repeatedly over the years, aka using a GPU normally.
See how a different understanding using PROPER tools changes something unlikely to something more likely.

 

[Eximo]

What's the role of underwriters, in an incident like this? If an organization like UL certifies a product and it catches fire, are they on the hook in any way? Like if the fire is shown to be due to a design flaw that they should've caught?

Or, is the entire value in such a certification simply the sense of security it's meant to give consumers?

If anything it makes companies less liable. They are basically saying that rigorous testing was performed and that any such occurrence could be deflected from their product. Maybe a faulty component or something else. At least that would be what the lawyers would argue.

 

[bit_user]

If anything it makes companies less liable.

Is this a hypothetical arguement, or based on actual and specific knowledge/experience?

My company has had to subject our products for various testing (RF, I'm not sure exactly what else) and they don't always pass on the first try.

 

[Eximo]

Is this a hypothetical arguement, or based on actual and specific knowledge/experience?

My company has had to subject our products for various testing (RF, I'm not sure exactly what else) and they don't always pass on the first try.

On UL's page as one of the benefits of participating. Generally also how lawyers defend clients, place the blame somewhere else, if possible.

Not sure what personal pass/fail of UL certification would have to do with it. On a more general note, failing would be non-UL compliant making a company certainly more liable. Passing would say that, to the best of their knowledge, the product is safe and could then look for other causes.

 

[bit_user]

On a more general note, failing would be non-UL compliant making a company certainly more liable.

If you fail, then you make design changes and re-submit. If a company deems these certifications to be worthwhile (and indeed, where they're required by law), you don't ship the product until it passes.

Maybe a faulty component or something else. At least that would be what the lawyers would argue.

UL certification certainly takes into account the possibility of component failure. If a component failure can create a fire or other hazard, it's an unsafe design almost by definition, because components can and do fail.

 

[Eximo]

If you fail, then you make design changes and re-submit. If a company deems these certifications to be worthwhile (and indeed, where they're required by law), you don't ship the product until it passes.


UL certification certainly takes into account the possibility of component failure. If a component failure can create a fire or other hazard, it's an unsafe design almost by definition, because components can and do fail.

Yes, I am understanding that. I'm not sure what relevance it has here. Either this card passed certification or it didn't. If it did, hooray! If it didn't, or this particular version of the card didn't, it would make the company more liable. Which was your question.

Yes, again, we are talking about liability. A smart lawyer sues everyone. UL, the manufacturer, the manufacturer of sub components, etc. The defense for UL would say they did their due diligence with the samples provided for testing. The manufacturer would say they did due diligence in getting that certification. The sub component manufacturer would try to blame the manufacturer. Maybe even talk about power surges or a faulty power supply. It is up to the plaintiff here to assign the blame using facts, and to prove damages.

In this case, if the PC is damaged and is not replaced by the GPU manufacturer, in addition to the faulty card, they could go after additional damages. But generally this is not cost feasible for small sums. What with arbitration clauses and potential small claims, probably easier to just go through home/renter's insurance.

 

[bit_user]

Yes, again, we are talking about liability. A smart lawyer sues everyone. UL, the manufacturer, the manufacturer of sub components, etc.

It's not what the plaintiff does that's in question. My question was about the value of a UL certification, which could either include liability insurance or be required for liability insurance.

If you don't know, that's okay. This is not school, where it's usually worth trying to BS your way through an answer. Opting to say nothing avoids putting wrong information out into the world and therefore has value when there's a good chance of being wrong.

 

[Eximo]

It's not what the plaintiff does that's in question. My question was about the value of a UL certification, which could either include liability insurance or be required for liability insurance.

If you don't know, that's okay. This is not school, where it's usually worth trying to BS your way through an answer. Opting to say nothing avoids putting wrong information out into the world and therefore has value when there's a good chance of being wrong.

I think you are confused as to which of your four questions I am attempting to answer. The first paragraph's question is what I was considering, liability.

I think I agree with you that the value to the consumer is just a warm fuzzy feeling. In practice the only thing that is going to change anything would be class action, individual protections are limited.

Historically, I can imagine that before UL certification there was some pretty terrible stuff out there. And these days, a lot of UL certifications are faked for simply copied from existing devices to appear legitimate.

 

[nogaard777]

What a brainless sub-headline. Apparently they're so hard up for news that they forgot sometimes electronics just fail. The fact that this is even a story just shows how desperate they've become for clicks in a slow news cycle.

 

[bit_user]

What a brainless sub-headline. Apparently they're so hard up for news that they forgot sometimes electronics just fail.

It shouldn't catch fire. That suggests a design flaw, because even a component failure shouldn't result in a fire.

The fact that this is even a story just shows how desperate they've become for clicks in a slow news cycle.

Yeah, IMO it's a bit borderline, especially given that it's one example and there's been no definitive diagnosis of the cause.

To be honest, I'm much more disappointed that when they covered the LPDDR7 spec finalization, there was no real in-depth analysis of the spec (and what analysis they did provide was quite sketchy, to put in nicely). IMO, they have only one or two contributors who could do that story justice - Anton and maybe Paul Alcorn. I only see Paul get involved in the biggest stories, but I don't know why they didn't give it to Anton. Nobody else on staff has the depth.

I wonder if they could've reached out to Ryan Smith, formerly of Anandtech. Heck, maybe their PSU reviewer would've been a good choice for the piece!

 

[Skramblr]

What's the role of underwriters, in an incident like this? If an organization like UL certifies a product and it catches fire, are they on the hook in any way? Like if the fire is shown to be due to a design flaw that they should've caught?

Or, is the entire value in such a certification simply the sense of security it's meant to give consumers?

Manufacturers typically do testing and submit reports for UL approval. The Mfg is on the hook for an issues like this that pop up. UL can block it from being sold and/or issue fines. Note that Emtek is a Korean Mfg and doesn't appear to sell to USA - UL only applies to USA.