Whether it is degrees C or F is just a way of measuring, it does not affect the problem
mroilfield didn't say anything about C or F in his previous reply.
The problem is "heat"
No, It's not. There is no problem, the original question is wether 166F under load is too hot for the card. It's not. Any semi-modern Graphics card is going to hit that temperature or higher pretty much regardless of what "heat transfer method" is being used.
This can be caused by the heat transfer method getting old or not applied correctly (heat transfer grease) or lack of proper circulation in the case or more cooling needed for the CPU
I find it funny that you would tell mroilfield to "please stay on the problem" and yet conveniently forget not only that there was no problem to begin with, only questions, and since both of the questions had to do with the Graphics card (and not the CPU), I'm not really sure what you are saying.
Different computers respond differently to heat problems. The motherboard (how it is mounted). The CPU (cooling methods and mounting plus heat transfer, which can include transfer grease and or heat fins, shrouds, and fans). The case (adequate ventilation) etc.
Yes, and Graphics cards respond generally the same. That is, they stop working or have problems. It's important to note however that not only are the temperatures specified relatively cool for an under-load GPU but that they made no note of any problems whatsoever afterward, and were merely concerned that the temperatures were high.
Since CPUs are expensive and are critical and coolers for them are comparatively inexpensive, it is a good insurance to increase the CPU cooling, which can be important to older computers or stressing computers with games.
And now not only is this advice irrelevant, it's pretty much wrong. While I cannot disagree that better cooling solutions can only help, what is a bit silly to assume is that any old inexpensive heatsink/fan is going to be better then the stock. The expensive coolers are pretty much the stock coolers with a few bits of glitter tacked on and probably a few dangly bits that make it look more like it belongs in an abstract art museum for the retarded then installed in a Computer. The cheap ones are pretty much just that- cheaper versions of the stock cooler that you got
for free with the CPU. Some people have this strange tendency to think that whatever you get with a product for it's use must suck, I imagine this tendency may have arisen from MP3 players including headphones cheaper then prostitutes with syphilis, but aside from the small niche that is overpriced and overappreciated things like MP3 players and so forth that type of thing is hardly seen.
A prime example of subversion of this established stereotype can be found with CPU coolers. First off, there is only one reason to include "cheap" accessories, required or not. To save money. Apple including headphones that make your Queen music sound like it's being sung by vanilla ice as he's being sodomized by a large european Walrus saves Apple loads of money. CPU vendors selling CPUs, with warranties, but with inadequate coolers would be like megablocks being sold with a safety guarantee and giant spinning razor blades attached. It just doesn't make any business sense. If you're overclocking, you might need an "aftermarket" cooler, but sorting out the abstract art and the pieces of chrome plastic takes ages- most "good" heatsinks are in the middle, not overpriced and undercooling pieces of abstract art, and not underpriced pieces of shaped tinfoil, but rather pieces of solid metal designed to radiate heat.
