Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Lab501] GTX590 VRMs analyzed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Lab501] GTX590 VRMs analyzed - Page 16

post #151 of 207
PooppaScoopa. Why are you posting always that same review everywhere? And always out of context... Not respecting the thread title/topic again?

And something is really wrong in that review that you love so much. 3x6970 is now (with 11.4 drivers) head-to-head with 3X 580 everywhere, except there. So 3X570 is not even in the competition anymore.

We all know Nvidia cards are ''winning'' in ''Nvidia optimized games''. LOL. TWIMTBP. The Nvidia marketing $ machine is hard at work those days...

And why do you think they are rushing those 580 3Gb to the market now, suddenly? Think about it. Because those 580 1.5GB are now loosing badly everywhere to the 6970 and 6990. They are looking bad. That's why EVGA and Nvidia are doing everything they can to produce new 580 with 3GB. To stop the beating.

Again, those Nvidia's ''cheap-ass'' philosophy/choices of only 1.5Gb of VRAM on a 500$ card is back-firing at them, and only 3-4 months after putting the 580 on the market! Just like the cheap-ass VRMs on the 590. You make stupid choices to save a couple of $, it will back-fire at you. Really stupid decisions IMHO. And to save what, a couple of $?

So now, they realized that AMD is soundly beating them, so their little friends at EVGA are now coming to the rescue to save their as*, since Palit/Gainward are not able to produce 3Gb cards en mass.

People should realized that EVGA made that announcement (of producing 580 3Gb cards) THE EXACT SAME WEEK that AMD came out with the 6990! NOT a coincidence. Think about it for 1 second. They are panicking.

And please, no 1080p and under resolution. Stop that. And no ''Nvidia optimized games''. We all now the 500$ 580 are ''better'' (lol) with low resolutions. 2560X1600 4XAA and 8XAA and over, 3X6970 is equal, and often ahead of 3X580. So...

Sigh. Be original... Surprise us! And please start your own ''Tri-SLI 570 against Tri-Fire'' thread somewhere else where it belong, and with that review you love/worship so much.

It's not the topic here.



Ouch. Nvidia should learn a trick or 2 on scaling in Tri from AMD.
Edited by Levesque - 4/2/11 at 6:14am
    
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
i7-5930k @ 4.9  i7-3930k @ 5.1 (2nd rig) Asus Rampage V (X99) + Asus Rampage IV (2nd rig) 2X Nvidia 1080 Ti SLI watercooled 
GraphicsRAMRAMHard Drive
2X Nvidia 980 Ti SLI watercooled (2nd rig)  4X8GB=32GB G.Skill DDR4-2700 4X4GB=16GB Ripjaws DDR3 2400 CL9 (2nd rig) 3X Samsung 840 Evo 1TB SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 250GB 3XSeagate 3TB LG Blu-ray writer 2X Quad-120 MCR420 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2X Triple-120 MCR320 + 1X Triple-120 Feser 2X Dual-120 XSPC RX240 32 Gentle Typhoon fans (mix of 3000 and 1850rpm) Reservoir 2X Koolance RP-452x2 with 4X MCP655 p... 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2X EK Supreme HF CPU waterblock Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer XB270HU IPS G-Sync 2440p (main rig) 3X 30'... CoolerMaster Masterkeys Pro S MX blue switch, C... 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCP1200 + AX850 dual PSU main rig, AX120... Mountain Mods Extended Ascension + Pedestal 24 ... Logitech G502 x 2 PSB speakers 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
i7-5930k @ 4.9  i7-3930k @ 5.1 (2nd rig) Asus Rampage V (X99) + Asus Rampage IV (2nd rig) 2X Nvidia 1080 Ti SLI watercooled 
GraphicsRAMRAMHard Drive
2X Nvidia 980 Ti SLI watercooled (2nd rig)  4X8GB=32GB G.Skill DDR4-2700 4X4GB=16GB Ripjaws DDR3 2400 CL9 (2nd rig) 3X Samsung 840 Evo 1TB SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Pro 250GB 3XSeagate 3TB LG Blu-ray writer 2X Quad-120 MCR420 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2X Triple-120 MCR320 + 1X Triple-120 Feser 2X Dual-120 XSPC RX240 32 Gentle Typhoon fans (mix of 3000 and 1850rpm) Reservoir 2X Koolance RP-452x2 with 4X MCP655 p... 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
2X EK Supreme HF CPU waterblock Windows 10 Pro x64 Acer XB270HU IPS G-Sync 2440p (main rig) 3X 30'... CoolerMaster Masterkeys Pro S MX blue switch, C... 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCP1200 + AX850 dual PSU main rig, AX120... Mountain Mods Extended Ascension + Pedestal 24 ... Logitech G502 x 2 PSB speakers 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #152 of 207
Every time you post, it's just a wall of gibberish. I wonder if you even passed high school English.
1st: tom's hardware...
2nd: Stock comparison...
3rd: Rambling off about who knows what...

Instead of foaming of the mouth, look at the benchmarks.
6970s can't even do 5760x1080 decently. 2GB didn't help one bit.
We all know the 590 is a joke.
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 4/2/11 at 6:41am
post #153 of 207
Thread Starter 
Take it somewhere else. Why is this in my thread?
post #154 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbassplayerxx View Post
I don't think any of your examples match the simplicity of the VRM design on the 590.

Why do you think the 590 is clocked so low? It's not because the chips can't go faster. It's because they had a power envelope they wanted to stay within. At these clocks, the card will draw a certain amperage (depended on voltage). As I don't want to reread the article for specifics, we'll say at full load and stock clocks the card draws 140A. For whatever reason, the power delivery was given minimal headroom, we'll call it 160A. While it's sufficient, it's far from the amount of headroom we're used to be seeing.

Because of these hard limits, they would have known the card wouldn't clock much above stock. You don't set power limits on a card and then hope you put a strong enough VRM. It's all math/theory. Beyond small inefficiencies, it's not even something that would need to be tested.

They could have easily thrown another phase or two on there to allow 200A per GPU and that would have alleviated this issue altogether. What we don't know is who was calling the shots to deviate them from this path and why.

As I said earlier, I'd pin it on budget or time constraints... but even more probably just the budget.
I believe you nailed it right on. I do believe IF Nvidia thought they could smoke ATI (the competition) with this card by installing a pennies on the dollar higher quality VRM solution they would have.

What did spock say, "when all else is not....only... remains...(cant remember lol)

My point is that there was no reason to hamstring this card's upside "by design" in a total contradiction to every single card they've released for years.

Why in the world would ASUS put the words "Voltage Tweak" Shift into Overdrive up to 50% faster. On the COVER of their box if someone didn't advise them that this was "The" flagship card of Nvidia.

If this was by design, where were the warnings? Before Day one of Shipping? All under NDA of course. Which means there's another story here. Did all the VRM's melt the night before these went on sale? Did NVIDIA ignore Beta testers and Benchers saying, Hey your cards blew up with standard OCing we've done on your past cards?

When all else is left, there's "Lying through Omission". Anyone with a job knows exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone knew the cards were crap, but couldn't say for one reason or another. Everyone.

I rant because I paid $700 for one
post #155 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoxt View Post
I believe you nailed it right on. I do believe IF Nvidia thought they could smoke ATI (the competition) with this card by installing a pennies on the dollar higher quality VRM solution they would have.

What did spock say, "when all else is not....only... remains...(cant remember lol)

My point is that there was no reason to hamstring this card's upside "by design" in a total contradiction to every single card they've released for years.

Why in the world would ASUS put the words "Voltage Tweak" Shift into Overdrive up to 50% faster. On the COVER of their box if someone didn't advise them that this was "The" flagship card of Nvidia.

If this was by design, where were the warnings? Before Day one of Shipping? All under NDA of course. Which means there's another story here. Did all the VRM's melt the night before these went on sale? Did NVIDIA ignore Beta testers and Benchers saying, Hey your cards blew up with standard OCing we've done on your past cards?

When all else is left, there's "Lying through Omission". Anyone with a job knows exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone knew the cards were crap, but couldn't say for one reason or another. Everyone.

I rant because I paid $700 for one
And you think marketing people and top brass, would want a universally laughable product that, it's mere existence drags the company down? You mean to tell me that they were willing to be embarrassed like this? As if they weren't embarrassed by the 570 enough? Their engineers still think the 570 is A-OK, hence why it never got fixed in the first place. It's like Ferrari making the Enzo, only it's motor to blows up when ever it is pushed which is the whole point of its existence. It's the halo product, the one every kid out there wants but can't have.

C'mon, there's a real failure here, and there's no clear cut sign of whom made the stupid decision. I kind of lean towards engineering because I know those guys can make stupid decisions.

Like Williams in 94, killing Senna cause they got the great idea of changing the steering column, and it failing thus killing the greatest driver to ever pilot an F1 car.

Engineers, yes engineers make stupid decisions even painfully obvious ones.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #156 of 207
Thread Starter 
This isn't a mistake. There's a difference between a design flaw, and under-engineering. This isn't some unforeseen consequence, this is them using components that a first year EE student could tell them, are woefully inadequate.
post #157 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus2129 View Post
This isn't a mistake. There's a difference between a design flaw, and under-engineering. This isn't some unforeseen consequence, this is them using components that a first year EE student could tell them, are woefully inadequate.
True. Basically they got arrogant -- thinking they were good enough to make drivers that would flawlessly mask hardware choices driven by the bottom line... But the driver based OCP is not behaving like they thought it would in every situation so cards are burning
post #158 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunion View Post
You're right, the 590 is not innovative, innovation leads to improvement.
Where's the improvement?

They lost it when they decided to cut costs on these dual gpu cards.
The rev 1 295 was not held to these same constraints, and guess what it did?
Dominated the 4870X2.
Ugh, again with the rose tinted glasses. The GTX295 didn't dominate the 4870X2 because it used better power hardware and whatnot, it dominated the 4870X2 because ATI created the 4870X2 in order to make their slower, cheaper cores more effective at high resolutions. The GT200 was far faster than the RV770 - so of course by putting two on a board you're still going to have a faster board. It wasn't faster because of the quality of the power hardware.

The rev1 GTX295 had extremely slim profits for nVidia - that's why they spent money making a rev2 (which had the same performance).

Back on topic - this card will sell well unless it starts failing. nVidia might have underestimated their OCP - and sure if the card can't handle overclocking it's a bad thing, which for me at least would tip the scales towards the 6990, but if you overclock you void your warranty and bear the obvious risks of overclocking anyway.

I'm sure there'll be some third party boards out soon if their is a big problem - or even a whole new design from nVidia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post
Dual GPU boards existed long before the 7950GX2. There were third party dual NVIDIA chip boards going back to at least the 6x00 line, and 3DFX had dual and quad VSA100 boards with the Voodoo 5 series.
Good point. I forgot about the earlier ones.
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #159 of 207
Why didn't nvidia just go the AMD path and use a pcb / heatsink of similar size?

With a bigger heatsink/fan it would be easier for nvidia to cool gtx590 without raising the temperature and with better pcb stock clocks could be higher as well.
Xeons Everywhere!
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Xeon x5470 Gigabyte EP45-UD3P rev 1.0 HD 7970 Gigabyte GTX 580 Classified Ultra 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
8Gb G.Skill Pi 9600 @ 1200; PL:9, TRFC:68 m4 256 Gb Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung T260/ Samsung 260HD CMStorm Quickfire Cherry Red XFX 1000W Platinum HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Razer Deathadder 2013 Xtrac Ripper XXL 
  hide details  
Reply
Xeons Everywhere!
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Xeon x5470 Gigabyte EP45-UD3P rev 1.0 HD 7970 Gigabyte GTX 580 Classified Ultra 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
8Gb G.Skill Pi 9600 @ 1200; PL:9, TRFC:68 m4 256 Gb Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung T260/ Samsung 260HD CMStorm Quickfire Cherry Red XFX 1000W Platinum HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Razer Deathadder 2013 Xtrac Ripper XXL 
  hide details  
Reply
post #160 of 207
So what everyone is saying, the the VRMs wont do the job on the card as it was released?

Listen they either work or they don't work, which is it?

You can argue about the design structure of a video card and claim it was stupid or cheap, but does it work?

If it doesn't then its a design flaw. The damn card as crippled as it has been made is competing pretty damn well with a 6990 with superior hardware.

I also can't buy a 14 phase card that does not exist, so please refrain from calling people who bought it (some of us before the VRM design was called into question) stupid. I know some of you feel it was cheap, and we get technically why, but the real question is, does it work as advertised? That's all you are ever guaranteed. If the card does die from user related issues such as OCing, there is always a warranty.

If you ask my ignorant opinion, the real fault lies in the BIOS allowing users to increase speeds and voltages way beyond the design frame. Giving the illusion of hidden performance, beyond the capacity of the card. Had they been properly locked down with ample OCP, NONE of this would matter, no early cards would have died, instead people would have smirked at the design haphazardly and just avoided it, like older MSI mother boards.

Some of us don't buy ATi on principal so all we have is what's available.

Sent from my DROID2
Edited by RagingCain - 4/2/11 at 12:03pm
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Lab501] GTX590 VRMs analyzed