dj-electricIn this thread - people who think Intel will use NVIDIA's problematic 8PIN adapters for 12VHPWR or are unaware of it being the cause of trouble with the connector so far.
Comes to show how important it is for people to spam the internet with useless kilobytes of text posts before even bothering to read the articles themselves properly.

dj-electricIn this thread - people who think Intel will use NVIDIA's problematic 8PIN adapters for 12VHPWR or are unaware of it being the cause of trouble with the connector so far.
Comes to show how important it is for people to spam the internet with useless kilobytes of text posts before even bothering to read the articles themselves properly.

dj-electricIn this thread - people who think Intel will use NVIDIA's problematic 8PIN adapters for 12VHPWR or are unaware of it being the cause of trouble with the connector so far.
Comes to show how important it is for people to spam the internet with useless kilobytes of text posts before even bothering to read the articles themselves properly.

kapone32The placement of the 12 pin is probably not going to lead to those types of failures that we are seeing. From the current information floating around online this could have been one of the straws that broke the relationship as the EVGA card belies Nvidia's demand that the card needs the power connector to be on top of the PCB.

ValantarDid Nvidia actually demand that? That's a.... strange thing to demand, especially on GPUs that are taller than ever. Thankfully end-mounted power connectors are the standard for anything server oriented, as they can't have protrusions from the top of the card for clearance reasons in tight rack mount chassis.

kapone32I heard it on Jays2 Cents and somewhere else like maybe PC World.

kapone32I also gleaned from the fact that the only difference between the EVGA Engineering Sample (More like tuning) is the only card that is like that in the entire stack.

ValantarHm, interesting.

That sounds like a stretch to me - correlation is not causation. Just because a feature is unique to the canned EVGA prototypes doesn't make it causally implicated in the break between the companies. That would be an incredibly petty and silly reason. It might be an example of the reported control Nvidia wanted to exert on AIB partners, but if that was the case it's extremely unlikely that EVGA would go so far as to make a near-final GPU design that they knew Nvidia wouldn't condone. A development process like that is very, very expensive, and you don't intentionally make it so that you have to change tooling at the last minute even if you're pissed at your partners.

kapone32I am not saying it was the mitigating factor but a contribution. Especially given the anecdotal evidence that Nvidia has yet to respond to the issue. I have heard that (PC World) the 2 media outfits that got them were begging for months for what they got.

kapone32The telling part for me is what they were able to do with them as breakdown and showing performance examples for a card that was never intended for retail channels is a little funny.

kapone32This would be a non issue if we didn't have adapters burning.

ValantarTo me that just sounds like Nvidia's typical reticence in discussing anything that isn't explicitly PR-oriented with press. Nothing new there.

But it was obviously intended for retail channels - you don't spend millions of dollars producing an engineering sample GPU unless you're planning to mass produce it. The existence of the card just shows how close to launch EVGA decided that enough was enough.

That is very much true. And it's entirely possible that Nvidia is in fact demanding top-mounted power connectors for some reason - it's just that this is too small of a detail for me to believe that it had any real effect on the Nvidia-EVGA relationship. Or to put it another way: if that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, then that camel was already massively overloaded with all of the other reported micromanagement and excessive control exerted by Nvidia. And I find the overall relationship and its breakdown far more interesting than specific details like this, as there's far more to learn from looking at the bigger picture.

kapone32I agree with you on all your points but for me if EVGA showed in their testing that there was a potential for what is happening by user error for the power connector placement, then making their own card for Nvidia to verify that they could not sell it like that could be enough to put even more strain on an already fractured relationship especially the expansion of the FE program.

Chrispy_The connector is in the direct airflow of the cooler though. This will have something like 8x 80mm delta 5000rpm fans pushing fresh air over the connector.

Even if the design is flawed enough to heat up under 600W, it's going to be actively cooled and unlikely to be pulling more than 300W in these examples.

ValantarThat's a good point. An overheating pin due to poor contact would likely still take damage over time, but it'd be a lot less dramatic than what we've seen on consumer GPUs. But then again, in hundred-thousand-dollar servers I kind of expect the wiring to be well made, tbh.

Chrispy_All of the failures so far have been in the adapters. Presumably these would be server rPSUs with dedicated 12+4pin HPWR connectors.