NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Spotted with Missing ROPs, NVIDIA Confirms the Issue, Multiple Vendors Affected, RTX 5070 Ti, Too

[Bwaze]

Are the RMAs sent from the normal stock which is nonexistent now?

“According to a post on X (formerly Twitter) by UK retailer, Overclockers.co.uk, the wait for fresh RTX 5090 stock could be between three and 16 weeks, potentially meaning buyers in the UK at least could be waiting until mid-May to get hold of one of the cards.“

 

[JustBenching]

Are the RMAs sent from the normal stock which is nonexistent now?

“According to a post on X (formerly Twitter) by UK retailer, Overclockers.co.uk, the wait for fresh RTX 5090 stock could be between three and 16 weeks, potentially meaning buyers in the UK at least could be waiting until mid-May to get hold of one of the cards.“

They are supposed to keep a set amount of cards for RMA but during launch they usually don't do that (ie. amd didn't have any during the XTX debacle).

 

[Hecate91]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia was actually doing this. lol

Agreed, I definitely wouldn't put it past Nvidia for them to do it on purpose.

Are the RMAs sent from the normal stock which is nonexistent now?

“According to a post on X (formerly Twitter) by UK retailer, Overclockers.co.uk, the wait for fresh RTX 5090 stock could be between three and 16 weeks, potentially meaning buyers in the UK at least could be waiting until mid-May to get hold of one of the cards.“

Or how could anyone know if an RMA sent in could be replaced with another card with missing ROPs?

 

[Denver]

Jensen's solution: Mask the hardware defect via software, send the same defective GPU back to the client.

What the eyes can't see, the heart can't feel.

 

[Quicks]

Let one thing be clear; they knew. It's 100% a conscious decision. It's not a QA issue.
It's not like they assemble graphics cards and then discover how many ROPs are usable. This means these GPUs are a lower bin, and that's how they know exactly how many are made (usually multiple bins go into a single SKU).

Perhaps they thought it would go unnoticed, or that the performance difference would be insignificant.

Yeah, thats what they all think until they get cought with their pants down...

The truth has a way to come out eventually, are they really so arrogant to think people won't notice?

There is something more to this story and why did they decide to remove the hot-spot sensor as well, after it was said blackwell runs hotter then it should?

Jensen's solution: Mask the hardware defect via software, send the same defective GPU back to the client.

What the eyes can't see, the heart can't feel.

You will still see lower performance?

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah, thats what they all think until they get cought with their pants down...

The truth has a way to come out eventually, are they really so arrogant to think people won't notice?

There is something more to this story and why did they decide to remove the hot-spot sensor as well, after it was said blackwell runs hotter then it should?

If they knew then they would have send such a card to a reviewer. Especially not as popular as TPU. Come on now....

 

[Quicks]

If they knew then they would have send such a card to a reviewer. Especially not as popular as TPU. Come on now....

That's what I am saying doubt they would be so arrogant. But its not Nvidia that send these cards to reviewers but AIB partners. They are also to blame and not checking for things like this.

 

[Sound_Card]

And here you are, again, flame baiting the same people into the same old discussion we've seen a half dozen times the last month. Makes you wonder whether you're getting paid for it at this point.

Get a life

Seriously, I hope he gets paid for it, because it would actually be even worse if he was doing it for free.

 

[Hecate91]

You will still see lower performance?

All Nvidia has to say is the cards will have "up to" the claimed performance.

That's what I am saying doubt they would be so arrogant. But its not Nvidia that send these cards to reviewers but AIB partners. They are also to blame and not checking for things like this.

But should the AIBs have to check every single card they sell in GPU-Z? IMO, the AIBs should be able to trust the chips Nvidia is selling them.

 

[Vya Domus]

But should the AIBs have to check every single card they sell in GPU-Z? IMO, the AIBs should be able to trust the chips Nvidia is selling them.

I've already explained it in a previous post, AIBs know that they are shipping these chips because they need a different VBIOS and they have to make sure it's the right one otherwise the GPU wont function correctly. Both Nvidia and their board partners did this on purpose, it wasn't a mistake, they knew exactly what they were selling.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Please God may the 9070XT be interesting

 

[JustBenching]

I've already explained it in a previous post, AIBs know that they are shipping these chips because they need a different VBIOS and they have to make sure it's the right one otherwise the GPU wont function correctly. Both Nvidia and their board partners did this on purpose, it wasn't a mistake, they knew exactly what they were selling.

And they sent one of these cards to TPU to make sure their little scheme stays under the radar. Makes sense.

 

[Vya Domus]

And they sent one of these cards to TPU to make sure their little scheme stays under the radar. Makes sense.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it's what happened, you don't get a random batch of chips with less ROPs and then miraculously they all end up with a correct VBIOS (the firmware has to come from Nvidia by the way) which supposedly you wouldn't know about ? You realize this sounds orders of magnitude more stupid, right ?

 

[Hecate91]

I've already explained it in a previous post, AIBs know that they are shipping these chips because they need a different VBIOS and they have to make sure it's the right one otherwise the GPU wont function correctly. Both Nvidia and their board partners did this on purpose, it wasn't a mistake, they knew exactly what they were selling.

The changed VBIOS seems like it was rushed given some cards are crashing or artifacting, but I would expect Nvidia strong armed the AIBs into selling defective chips with the reasoning of being forced to sell the chips they received or they don't get any at all, because of the reputation Nvidia has with their partner brands.

And they sent one of these cards to TPU to make sure their little scheme stays under the radar. Makes sense.

Of course not, cards tech reviewers get are hand picked samples.

 

[JustBenching]

Of course not, cards tech reviewers get are hand picked samples.

You do understand that TPU received one of those missing ROPs cards from zotac, right? Handpicked, sure.

 

[pavle]

Maybe they've (nvidia) mixed up the chips that were supposed to be for RTX5090_D (but it now has same config as regular 5090)... Quite a mess!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

This just seems weird to me. I would think that if a card shipped out with disabled hardware, wouldn't the inconsistency in hardware cause driver instability if the driver was trying to use a pool of ROPs that's disabled? Or maybe there's enough self-correcting software to avoid crashes? Are the BIOSes the same between "anomaly" cards and fully-functional ones?

 

[Hecate91]

You do understand that TPU received one of those missing ROPs cards from zotac, right? Handpicked, sure.

I don't see news of this in the OP.
Edit- I see it now, they had a Zotac card for review.
I find it weird TPU didn't say anything about the missing ROPs sooner.

 

[wNotyarD]

I don't see news of this in the OP.
Edit- I see it now, they had a Zotac card for review.
I find it weird TPU didn't say anything about the missing ROPs sooner.

Did they publish a review of the Zotac at all?

 

[bearClaw5]

If people are dumb enough to pay $2000+ for a 70 series card, more power to nvidia to take advantage of them.

 

[Vya Domus]

This just seems weird to me. I would think that if a card shipped out with disabled hardware, wouldn't the inconsistency in hardware cause driver instability if the driver was trying to use a pool of ROPs that's disabled? Or maybe there's enough self-correcting software to avoid crashes? Are the BIOSes the same between "anomaly" cards and fully-functional ones?

It's not the driver which ensures correct hardware functionality but the firmware, aka VBIOS, these cards have to be shipped with a different firmware for them to work correctly, there is no self correcting software, the firmware needs to know to which units it can issue micro ops.

It works like this :

Shader is compiled by the driver -> instructions are sent to the GPU -> there's a command processor on the GPU which takes these instruction turns them into micro ops and dispatches them to corresponding units. The command processor can't know which units work and which don't, the firmware on the card needs to have that information.

 

[cmguigamf]

Please God may the 9070XT be interesting

At this point if 9070XT ship as announced, it might already be a win for AMD.

 

[Hecate91]

Did they publish a review of the Zotac at all?

I haven't seen a review for a Zotac RTX 5090 Solid, either TPU didn't publish it yet, or I suspect Nvidia knew about this issue and told reviewers to not say anything about the affected cards.

 

[_roman_]

Do anyone believe in that random picked number? I really doubt that number.
It is nice to state that it's only a small number to calm down the Haters, Fanboys and those who do not belong in any of those two groups.

If nvidia really know it is 0.5% than recall all those chips. If products are made than put a sticker on the box, flash a different firmware and sell those cards as nvidia 5090 G = Good Value Garbage edition (D is already used for D=defect)

We have identified a rare issue affecting less than 0.5% (half a percent) of GeForce RTX 5090 / 5090D and 5070 Ti GPUs which have one fewer ROP than specified. The average graphical performance impact is 4%, with no impact on AI and Compute workloads. Affected consumers can contact the board manufacturer for a replacement. The production anomaly has been corrected.

Personally I would not call 0.5 % a small value. Far too large. I doubt that only one in every 200 cards is effected. I think it's a higher number.
That issue popped up quite fast. Not everyone reads, not everyone uses or has access that special read out software. Not everyone runs that software after the driver for correct readout is installed. Not everyone uses windows.

It's not the driver which ensures correct hardware functionality but the firmware, aka VBIOS, these cards have to be shipped with a different firmware for them to work correctly, there is no self correcting software, the firmware needs to know to which units it can issue micro ops.

I highly doubt that. The hardware has some mechanism to know itself which ones are defect. I assume those defect areas do not exists anymore because the connections are lasercut in the factory. The firmware just probes the hardware and see it.

Anyway - the firmware needs to be programmed for such a mechanism beforehand. The hardware needs to be prepared for that mechanism beforehand. There is no random we have less rop issue.

 

[JustBenching]

I don't see news of this in the OP.
Edit- I see it now, they had a Zotac card for review.
I find it weird TPU didn't say anything about the missing ROPs sooner.

So your handpicked theory goes out of the window, right? Unless you meant they are handpicking for faulty cards.