happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
"Nvidia GTX 590 Rumors Grossly Exaggerated. Techreport link inside "
Tell us something we allready didn't know.
Tell us something we allready didn't know.
"Nvidia GTX 590 Rumors Grossly Exaggerated. Techreport link inside "
Tell us something we allready didn't know.
Keys....Just wanted to say thanks for popping up another thread to read
Had surgery on my hand 2 weeks ago so it's been pretty boring being home on disibility with not much to do!
The 590's launch was perfect timing for me!
To bad the red and green teams couldn't just team up once a year and produce what I'll call a all star card! I think with AMD's help nvidia could get it done right the first time![]()
Nvidia better get their driver team functional. Bad drivers frying cards is not a good sales tactic.
Looks like nvidia has gone into hotfix overdrive mode.
Looking forward to the articles on the exploding 590 that needed four driver releases in under a week to bandaid the faulty hardware design.
This is FUD. Right above you, is explained the last 3 driver releases and what they are.
There were no emergency band-aid drivers as you put it. Launch drivers are 267.84 and they have the proper circuitry protection.
Plenty of work ahead for nv pr. :thumbsup:
Yep some people here with intentions that are a mystery to me took it and ran with it.
It isn't surpising on a message board that is mostly full of the competition's fan club.
They will sell every 590 they make, and Kepler will be here before we know it. This faux-hoopla in the last couple days will be nothing but a sensationalized spec on the radar.
Multiple links and multiple examples of the same failing component on GTX 590s.
Yup, that were overvolted and unprotected by pre-press drivers, and they were cautioned. But, what can you do.
Such rumors are also an intriguing source of information because so many of 'em seem to be planted by a major, engineering-focused organization—you know, a competing firm.
This is FUD. A few posts above you, is explained the last 3 driver releases and what they are.
There were no emergency band-aid drivers as you put it. Launch drivers are 267.84 and they have the proper circuitry protection.
The issue is that, just because their card isn't having problems doesn't mean other peoples' cards are fine. More time and data is needed.
That is outright ridiculous and in light of the fact that there were cards being killed, is pointless to even say.
I don't know why people act surprised that this blew up (har! har!), there's video evidence of a part on a card exploding, that's obviously going to cause a big mess. Then, surprise, other people have had their cards die. Fact is, there was, possibly still is a problem with these cards.
I asked once in the nvidia forums about a card of mine that ran hot in its 90s. It was some years ago with the 8400gs. Suddenly a nvidia mod popped up and said the following
A NVIDIA GPU CAN WITHSTAND TEMPERATURES OF 600 DEGREES.
I promised myself never to go to the nvidia forums again
I dont see those listed in Ryan's review all he has listed are
NVIDIA ForceWare 262.99
NVIDIA ForceWare 266.56 Beta
NVIDIA ForceWare 266.58
NVIDIA ForceWare 267.71
Did AT not receive launch drivers?
Here is an example of a 6990 dying after an AUSUM run and switched back to normal.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/AMD_HD_6990_Antilles/18.html
Read the "UPDATE" on the Conclusion page.
Fact isn't. The cards are fine.
Look, why do you think the 6990's AUSUM usage isn't covered under warranty by AMD? Because it not only ups the clocks, but ups the voltage. Enough to raise the wattage from 375W to 450W just by flicking the switch.
If it were completely safe to do so, don't you think AMD might have warranted this AUSUM setting? Alas, they did not.
Here is an example of a 6990 dying after an AUSUM run and switched back to normal.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/AMD_HD_6990_Antilles/18.html
Read the "UPDATE" on the Conclusion page.
This is a quote from your link
While overclocking the HD 6990 we set the switch to the position 1 "AUSUM" setting to make use of the additional power. At this setting we were able to push the Cayman GPUs upward of 1000MHz, which was well beyond our exceptions.
so they didn't just flip the switch
This is in the "wait and see" category for me. Regardless of the reasons and any fixes, the GTX 590 exhibited what I consider to be an abnormal failure rate to just be ignored.
For the record, I am a very pleased GTX 580 owner and I have no axe to grind with NVIDIA.
What is the relevance of this? Even if the 6990 had loads of well documented issues it would not have any impact on the GTX 590.
Couldn't hurt to ask him to specify what he used for the review. I mean, did he use 4 drivers for his review?
Also, did his card die?
Fact isn't. The cards are fine.
Look, why do you think the 6990's AUSUM usage isn't covered under warranty by AMD? Because it not only ups the clocks, but ups the voltage. Enough to raise the wattage from 375W to 450W just by flicking the switch.
If it were completely safe to do so, don't you think AMD might have warranted this AUSUM setting? Alas, they did not.
Here is an example of a 6990 dying after an AUSUM run and switched back to normal.
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/AMD_HD_6990_Antilles/18.html
Read the "UPDATE" on the Conclusion page.
Fact is, there was, possibly still is a problem with these cards.