[vr-zone] GTX 590 revision in June

[Matrices]

What a way to piss on your customers: here, buy our most expensive video card; no, don't mind us as we ship the non-shit version a few months later.

If I didn't need Nvidia for solid 3D gaming, I'd think long and hard about buying another Nvidia product.

 

[SolMiester]

What a way to piss on your customers: here, buy our most expensive video card; no, don't mind us as we ship the non-shit version a few months later.

If I didn't need Nvidia for solid 3D gaming, I'd think long and hard about buying another Nvidia product.

You have the GTX590?

 

[dualsmp]

So when the dust settled it ultimately was a hardware problem. Nice that they fixed it but I'm sure some that bought the original $700 beta 590's are not too pleased. I guess the crippled drivers will remain since the beta 590's still might have problems with burning up.

 

[Spikesoldier]

You have the GTX590?

I don't think owning a product is a prerequisite to sharing the opinion that he wouldn't appreciate the way they handled the issue.

 

[ZimZum]

6990 > 590, but IMO, 590 rev2 > 6990. Once the board is robust enough to handle two full gf110's at high speeds, Nvidia will have the performance crown again.

Your probably right, which brings up another question. Since many of the 590's woes were blamed on cost cutting measures. I'm curious to see if the rev2 will be priced higher than the original 590.

 

[3DVagabond]

Your probably right, which brings up another question. Since many of the 590's woes were blamed on cost cutting measures. I'm curious to see if the rev2 will be priced higher than the original 590.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the major consideration for the redesign. They can charge more for card faster than the 6990. Redesign it, make it the fastest, and charge the halo premium. There are a lot of wins in this for nVidia.

 

[Idontcare]

Why are they coming out with a revision if all was OK? This is not a new stepping or respin. It's a redesign of the power stage because the original design is sub par.

They were pressured to match AMD and release a dual card. They already missed one entire gen with the 400 series. It would have been better for nVidia's customers if they had held off release until they had redesigned it to compete with the 6990. I don't think they had any idea that AMD was going to push the power envelope so far. They probably had already made them though and decided to push them as far as they would go in an attempt to match the 6990 and sell them. I don't think they are up to the standards of other nVidia cards. If I bought an original release design I'd be very disappointed if nVidia doesn't offer replacement with a new card.

There are lots of reasons to come out with design revisions. Same with driver revisions, yes?

Are all subsequent driver releases the result of the current drivers being broken?

Revisions can be the result of a need to fix broken hardware, the original Phenom had a broken TLB that required a new hardware revision (B3 stepping) to correct. Likewise with the Intel 6-series chipset recall that required a new stepping to correct the problem.

But some revisions are done for cost-reduction reasons, either directly in having a lower-to-produce cost or indirectly by way of enabling higher yields so there is more revenue generated from the same production costs.

I'm not aware of anything being broken with the GTX590, ergo a revision to the GTX590 would presumably be undertaken by Nvidia as a cost-reduction and/or yield enhancement activity.

That is clearly nothing more than speculation on my part (regarding the intent of the revision) but suffice to say I think we can all agree that "revision" does not always mean "replacing something that was broken".

One would hope the new revised GTX590 offers something more to the end-customer, lowered power-consumption or quieter fan operations maybe, but saying the customer's who own one already should receive a replacement seems a bit over-zealous doesn't it given that the original GTX590 performs as specified?

I owned a power-hungry B3-stepping Kentsfield, when the much lower power consuming G0 stepping came out I bought five more, I certainly did not feel like Intel cheated me by not replacing my B3-stepping chip at the time.

If I had bought a GTX590 I would not expect it to be replaced unless it failed to perform to spec.

 

[Grooveriding]

There are lots of reasons to come out with design revisions. Same with driver revisions, yes?

Are all subsequent driver releases the result of the current drivers being broken?

Revisions can be the result of a need to fix broken hardware, the original Phenom had a broken TLB that required a new hardware revision (B3 stepping) to correct. Likewise with the Intel 6-series chipset recall that required a new stepping to correct the problem.

But some revisions are done for cost-reduction reasons, either directly in having a lower-to-produce cost or indirectly by way of enabling higher yields so there is more revenue generated from the same production costs.

I'm not aware of anything being broken with the GTX590, ergo a revision to the GTX590 would presumably be undertaken by Nvidia as a cost-reduction and/or yield enhancement activity.

That is clearly nothing more than speculation on my part (regarding the intent of the revision) but suffice to say I think we can all agree that "revision" does not always mean "replacing something that was broken".

One would hope the new revised GTX590 offers something more to the end-customer, lowered power-consumption or quieter fan operations maybe, but saying the customer's who own one already should receive a replacement seems a bit over-zealous doesn't it given that the original GTX590 performs as specified?

I owned a power-hungry B3-stepping Kentsfield, when the much lower power consuming G0 stepping came out I bought five more, I certainly did not feel like Intel cheated me by not replacing my B3-stepping chip at the time.

If I had bought a GTX590 I would not expect it to be replaced unless it failed to perform to spec.

Per the article

Remember the horror of GeForce GTX 590 going up in smoke while benching? Well, apparently NVIDIA has found a way to solve this issue completely without doing a quick fix through the drivers. The solution : a much needed hardware fix where the new inductors are added to the card. However, the new inductors are larger in size therefore a change to the baseplate is needed. What does it mean to the 3rd party cooling solutions especially the GTX 590 waterblocks? Probably back to the drawing board so as to conform to the revised keep outs. The revised GeForce GTX 590 cards denoted with a new -502 marking on the PCB are expected to hit the market in June.

The revision is using the same cores as the 590 but looks to be having components enhanced, so one would assume costs will go up.

Per your logic, if they are instituting a fix that would increase the cost of the board to produce, the logic continues to dictate it is a fix.

And there is ample evidence of the 590 being a defective card that needed a driver patch to make it safe for the end-user.

 

[Keysplayr]

Per the article



The revision is using the same cores as the 590 but looks to be having components enhanced, so one would assume costs will go up.

Per your logic, if they are instituting a fix that would increase the cost of the board to produce, the logic continues to dictate it is a fix.

And there is ample evidence of the 590 being a defective card that needed a driver patch to make it safe for the end-user.

I challenge you to demonstrate how the GTX590 I have in my rig is defective. I don't care what the "article" says or what "you" are getting out of it. I'd like to know what you have to say about what I have here, and why it's not working.

 

[Jionix]

I challenge you to demonstrate how the GTX590 I have in my rig is defective.

Apparently, Nvidia feels different. Why else would they be releasing a "fixed" version of the card with better power components if all is well in 590 land?

Funny, seeing as how you were quite adamant in defending the original power design when the 590 initially came out..

Maybe Nvidia would have been better suited "ninja'ing" the new 590s into distribution. But then, how would they explain the price increase? I firmly believe that this new 590 will be higher in cost, and the reason that it is coming out is that Nvidia will have to explain this cost increase.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I challenge you to demonstrate how the GTX590 I have in my rig is defective. I don't care what the "article" says or what "you" are getting out of it. I'd like to know what you have to say about what I have here, and why it's not working.

• Run driver sweeper
• Install drivers from the disc the card came with
• Run Furmark for a couple of hours

 

[Madcatatlas]

Originally Posted by Keysplayr

I challenge you to demonstrate how the GTX590 I have in my rig is defective. I don't care what the "article" says or what "you" are getting out of it. I'd like to know what you have to say about what I have here, and why it's not working.

Originally Posted by Dark Shroud

Run driver sweeper
Install drivers from the disc the card came with
Run Furmark for a couple of hours

or what!?

I bet you he ment "prove anything BUT the original drivers causing an explosion"..

 

[Spikesoldier]

quick someone call the fire dept to key's house, hes offline!

 

[Keysplayr]

Apparently, Nvidia feels different. Why else would they be releasing a "fixed" version of the card with better power components if all is well in 590 land?

Funny, seeing as how you were quite adamant in defending the original power design when the 590 initially came out..

Maybe Nvidia would have been better suited "ninja'ing" the new 590s into distribution. But then, how would they explain the price increase? I firmly believe that this new 590 will be higher in cost, and the reason that it is coming out is that Nvidia will have to explain this cost increase.

Fixed? Or improved for overclocking/higher performance? Which is it really? Because my GTX590 most certainly does not need fixing. And if it is faster, then of course it would cost more. I have NO idea why anyone would think it would cost less or equal.

I see no Nvidia "quotes" in that VR-Zone article stating that GTX590 needs "fixing". You know what? I don't see any "quotes" at all.. I do see the word "apparently" used, which means the author is embellishing or even guessing at what he "thinks" is going on without any actual data besides a new improved GTX590? "Apparently" the author is trying to latch onto GTX590 launch controversy momentum. I could be wrong, or I could be embellishing a little based on what I see here.

 

[Keysplayr]

or what!?

I bet you he ment "prove anything BUT the original drivers causing an explosion"..

Sounds like a plan. Please, have at it.

 

[Keysplayr]

quick someone call the fire dept to key's house, hes offline!

Ummm. What?

 

[Spikesoldier]

Ummm. What?

tongue in cheek humor, my friend :beer;

 

[Spikesoldier]

Fixed? Or improved for overclocking/higher performance? Which is it really? Because my GTX590 most certainly does not need fixing. And if it is faster, then of course it would cost more. I have NO idea why anyone would think it would cost less or equal.

I see no Nvidia "quotes" in that VR-Zone article stating that GTX590 needs "fixing". You know what? I don't see any "quotes" at all.. I do see the word "apparently" used, which means the author is embellishing or even guessing at what he "thinks" is going on without any actual data besides a new improved GTX590? "Apparently" the author is trying to latch onto GTX590 launch controversy momentum. I could be wrong, or I could be embellishing a little based on what I see here.

your argument make perfect sense, only because NV does not admit its own faults. this is why you will never see NV quoting themselves as screwing up, and people/reviewers have to 'assume' and reach their own judgments; often through a cloud of spin and a fog of shills. we all know that NV is heavily marketing driven, and they have a policy of simply sweeping the issues under the rug and hoping nobody notices.

face it, the 590 v1 is/was a poor enthusiast card targeted at enthusiasts. if your only argument is that the 590 works only at stock everything, then it is a poor enthusiast card, IMO.

my intuition also tells me that the lifespan of the 590 relative to other cards will be shortened given the slim headroom it has in terms of both OC headroom and the intolerance it has to even slight voltage increases.

as we all know, silicon degrades over time. the larger OC headroom a chip has, then the longer it will last when you factor in degradation over time at stock frequency.

correct me if im wrong: but i dont think you spent 700USD on that 590 you have. you spent your time online posting your personal opinions to ultimately acquire that card. in my eyes, your opinions you give here either paint you as an enthusiast, or something else.

 

[SirPauly]

"Nvidia regularly adds alternate source components to products as part of normal supply chain management, but there is no new Geforce GTX 590 board design as rumoured."

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2071334/geforce-gtx-590-board-designs-nvidia

 

[OCGuy]

I challenge you to demonstrate how the GTX590 I have in my rig is defective. I don't care what the "article" says or what "you" are getting out of it. I'd like to know what you have to say about what I have here, and why it's not working.

It's mostly jealousy, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

This forum is basically a bunch of kids with Seikos talking about Rolexes.

 

[Kenmitch]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2071334/geforce-gtx-590-board-designs-nvidia

???

I guess time will tell....I'm sure we'll see soon enough if it's gonna be revised or not.

I'm leaning towards a stealth revision....Which won't slip past as the pcb's will tell all.

 

[notty22]

From the inquirer link

but there is no new Geforce GTX 590 board design as rumoured." They added, "All Geforce GTX 590 graphics cards run great as originally designed."

Its funny how some armchair engineers seem to know different. LOL

 

[OCGuy]

From the inquirer link

Its funny how some armchair engineers seem to know different. LOL

Exactly. I have yet to hear about a wave of failures of 590s being run within specification. Something tells me I will be waiting a long time.

 

[Bearach]

Fixed? Or improved for overclocking/higher performance? Which is it really?

It's certainly plausible what you suggest, just like it is what others assume. I don't know which is correct, and probably we'll never really know.

 

[Firestorm007]

Exactly. I have yet to hear about a wave of failures of 590s being run within specification. Something tells me I will be waiting a long time.

An enthusiast card run within specification? Really??? I'm sure your tune would be different had this been the 6990. Facts are facts; and there are plenty of them that initially supported this failure. But I guess sure you can't see that.