ASUS GeForce GTX 590 3 GB

[newtekie1]

If the over current was fine it wouldn't have popped. I know you have problems accepting that but the many reviews on the Internet support my view. Where as you sound to be making excuses. Boo Whoo. Its everyone elses fault but Nvidias. Sometimes a duck is a duck.

Once you bypass nVidia's set limit, the overcurrent protection literally can't do its job, and you know the risk. Doesn't make the card's design flawed in any way.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Once you bypass nVidia's set limit, the overcurrent protection literally can't do its job, and you know the risk. Doesn't make the card's design flawed in any way.

yeah it seems he doesnt understand that. going to 1.2v is easily past nvidia set 1.050v limit. if your at 1.050v the card should be fine

 

[Harlequin_uk]

what he is saying though , is if that limit is so crucial , why in the asus card is there the ability to go passed it? if it was set in stone then the bios should not have any option to go to 1.2v;

so the limit in fact came into effect AFTER cards started blowing up, sweclockers and XS allready said as much since they had the review done and dusted (and dead cards) before the email came in with the new limit anyway.

 

[W1zzard]

it would appear that nvidia actually emailed before the nda was lifted about keeping voltage below 1.05v , was this before or after wizzard blew this one up?

after launch, after getting off the phone with the editors who blew up their cards

 

[Harlequin_uk]

tweaktown and xs got the email the day before

 

[erocker]

Conspiracy? Alien abduction, perhaps? We'll never know. Or, apparently some didn't get the email.

 

[Harlequin_uk]

Conspiracy? Alien abduction, perhaps? We'll never know. Or, apparently some didn't get the email.

more than likely - but hardwarecannucks are adding there 10cents worth:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/video/nvidia-responds-complaints-newly-released-gtx-590-frying/

In addition, here is an extract from ASUS’ GTX 590 reviewer’s guide:

It is not advised to exceed the 1.050 to 1.065 vcore range as this begins to meet the limits for the OCP/OVP mechanism on the card. Exceeding these values without disabling OCP/OVP or having superior cooling could affect the lifespan and functionality of the card/gpu.

The lesson of the day is this folks: ignoring manufacturer’s recommendations and overclocking your card way beyond its limitations (especially when using beta drivers and beta software) can in fact lead to the unfortunate killing of hardware. Fancy that eh?

implication being ofc that *some people* ignored what was recommended........


still when the gtx 460 in sli is near enough as quick as this ` monster` - beggers the question - why should anyone actually buy it

 

[HalfAHertz]

Conspiracy? Alien abduction, perhaps? We'll never know. Or, apparently some didn't get the email.

WTF you mean to tell me it was aliens that sabotaged the 590 and not North Korea???
Damn gues I wasted my $ on that korean attack survival gear

 

[newtekie1]

after launch, after getting off the phone with the editors who blew up their cards

But what was the board maximum set to in the BIOS of your test card?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Once you bypass nVidia's set limit, the overcurrent protection literally can't do its job, and you know the risk. Doesn't make the card's design flawed in any way.

Over current protection Is designed to do that exactly. To protect the card from excess power. If it can't do that past the set limit (which by the way is pretty much the max the board can take anyway apparently.) then its flawed. Plain and simple. You should be able to pump it with 3 volts and it not fry the card. You have to understand W1zz didn't do anything magical. He just tried to do what the box stated "up to 50%" more power. In no time should have the card blown up attempting to do whats its advertised.

Now you will say "Oh but it said power not volts" Well have you ever heard of a card producing anywhere near 50% plus power without upping the volts? Volts isn't a major issue in OC. You know this. Heat is. The only thing volts can do if the GPU is well cooled is produce electron migration which can cut the GPU lifespan down....even thats very debatable. But in this case the GPU was fine. It was the damn board that blew. Why? Because the over-current protection was inadequate. The damn thing should have never went snap crackle pop. This is why the 6990 got a higher score I am willing to bet. The 6990 is just a better designed card. Is it better in performance? Debatable. But its built better with its own limitations in mind.

Anyway W1zz just stated the "limit" was given to him well after he blew up the card....along with other review sites. Gee someone dropped the ball.....I wonder who.

 

[Harlequin_uk]

Anyway W1zz just stated the "limit" was given to him well after he blew up the card....along with other review sites. Gee someone dropped the ball.....I wonder who

`other review` sites got the email before the nda was lifited , maybe after they blew teh cards or not - but before the nda was lifted.

 

[newtekie1]

Over current protection Is designed to do that exactly. To protect the card from excess power. If it can't do that past the set limit (which by the way is pretty much the max the board can take anyway apparently.) then its flawed. Plain and simple. You should be able to pump it with 3 volts and it not fry the card.

Except that is not what the protection is designed to do exactly. It is designed to stop the card from pulling excess power when run within spec. It is not designed to pretect people that want to ignore the other safety features put in place and bypass nVidia's set maximums. The card and the power protection was not designed to handle 1.2v, period.

You have to understand W1zz didn't do anything magical. He just tried to do what the box stated "up to 50%" more power. In no time should have the card blown up attempting to do whats its advertised.

Yes, what W1z did was magical. He, I assume since he hasn't answered what the limit of the BIOS on his cards were set to, bypassed the limit set by nVidia. Made a 0.2v voltage jump in one go(what experienced overclocker does that?), and grossly bypassed the limit nVidia had set for the card.

I've asked you at least once to show me where on the box it says 50% more power. It is not advertised anywhere on the box that the card can handle 1.2v or 50% more power. Until you show me where on the box exactly it says that 1.2v is safe, or that the card can handle 50% more power, you need to stop making this argument. Furthermore, it clearly does say on the box that extreme cooling is needed to the up to 50% more speed, W1z wasn't using extreme cooling.

 

[TheMailMan78]

 

[qubit]

Ok people, never mind if the card has an inherent design flaw, I'm wondering if given its high cost, it'll be worth repairing by the manufacturer or will it just be scrapped?

 

[newtekie1]

http://img.techpowerup.org/110327/package1.jpg

I don't see anywhere on there where it says 1.2v is safe, or up to 50% more power. Care to show me exactly where those to things are shown?

Perhaps you are confusing the meaning of "faster" with the meaning of "more power"? You know those aren't the same thing, right? Apparently not...

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't see anywhere on there where it says 1.2v is safe, or up to 50% more power. Care to show me exactly where those to things are shown?

Ok 50% more speed and with voltage tweak. So I guess you expected to get 50% more speed with pixie dust? Cool.

 

[newtekie1]

Ok 50% more speed and with voltage tweak. So I guess you expected to get 50% more speed with pixie dust? Cool.

No, I expect to get it with extreme cooling, like the box says. But I guess, since you are so into what the box says, you felt it ok to ignore where the box says extreme cooling is necessary...wait that doesn't make sense...

 

[erocker]

Is it even possible to "extreme cool" the part that blew up or the part that caused the part to blow up?

 

[TheMailMan78]

No, I expect to get it with extreme cooling, like the box says. But I guess, since you are so into what the box says, you felt it ok to ignore where the box says extreme cooling is necessary...wait that doesn't make sense...

And you do you think extreme cooling would have made any difference in this case considering the GPU didn't melt down?

 

[newtekie1]

Is it even possible to "extreme cool" the part that blew up or the part that caused the part to blow up?

Extreme cool mosfets? Yeah, but I'm not sure it will help with popping, however adding better cooling to mosfets definitely will help them handle more current. However, extreme cooling the GPU will help achieve the "up to" 50% higher GPU clocks.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Extreme cool mosfets? Yeah, but I'm not sure it will help with popping. However, extreme cooling the GPU will help achieve the "up to" 50% higher GPU clocks.

Not without a massive voltage jump.

 

[CDdude55]

Is it even possible to "extreme cool" the part that blew up or the part that caused the part to blow up?

True.

I thought he pumped to much voltage into the GPU's themselves which then ended up frying it, and it that case, ''extreme cooling'' should easily solve the problem.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Its marketing, up to 90% of marketing from all companies including AMD and Nvidia is bullshit or propaganda.

 

[newtekie1]

And you do you think extreme cooling would have made any difference in this case considering the GPU didn't melt down?

Extreme cooling doesn't mean just the GPU. Cooling the VRMs better might save them. Better cooling certainly will allow a mosfet to handle more current without frying.

Not without a massive voltage jump.

And with extreme cooling a massive voltage bump will be possible. Of course with extreme cooling, you don't exactly expect the card to last for more than half an hour or so anyway. Unless you are running cards on liquid nitrogen 24/7?

 

[TheMailMan78]

True.

I thought he pumped to much voltage into the GPU's themselves which then ended up frying it, and it that case, ''extreme cooling'' should easily solve the problem.

But thats not what blew. What blew was on the very edge of the card.

Its marketing, up to 90% of marketing from all companies including AMD and Nvidia is bullshit or propaganda.

Thats irrelevant. They still have to provide proof making such a claim or face false advertisement charges. Even if the circumstanse are wacky like they tested it on the surface of Pluto. They still have to provide proof if questioned.

Extreme cooling doesn't mean just the GPU. Cooling the VRMs better might save them. Better cooling certainly will allow a mosfet to handle more current without frying.

And with extreme cooling a massive voltage bump will be possible. Of course with extreme cooling, you don't exactly expect the card to last for more than half an hour or so anyway. Unless you are running cards on liquid nitrogen 24/7?

So I guess you need to submerge the entire card in LN?

Accroding to even Nvidia "This should not have happen"

According to NVIDIA this should not happen. In their official reviewer driver (which I used), the NVIDIA Power limit is designed to be active for all applications, not only Furmark.

So yeah something failed here. It failed in other reviews. Again this is not an isolated incident and the card sucks in its current revision, blown cards across a few sites proves this. Now maybe when the new one W1zz talked about hits the streets you might have something worth buying.