GeForce driver v267.52 could overheat GTX 590

User Comments: 31

1. March 27, 2011 6:57 PM
   

   dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

   It's the nature of the enthusiast to push to the limits. I think that is a given.

   What I (and a quite a few others) find bizarre is that the overclocking/performance gain parameters of the GF110 are already well known. W1zzard himself noted as much when saying that performance gains amount to nil once you start nearing 1.1v (and this on a GPU that has a 5+% higher stock voltage)

   So, riddle me this Batman...Why would you push 1.2v when you already have this evidence on the same GPU ? What evidence is there from this data that 1.2v is going to offer a positive outcome ?

   On a related note, w1zzard overclocked the HD6990 using stock (1.12v) voltage- didn't bother to even try 1.175v. Why? Using the same metric applied to the 590 article he could/should have had 1.47v as his upper (or starting) limit- why not try for 1100 Core?

   Having two 470's OC'd, I've often considered the van Gogh route, and just doing away with my ears altogether to buy myself some peace. :p

   I tried that already. You'd really have to love gaming and/or benching is all I can say.

   Reply
2. March 27, 2011 7:05 PM
   

   red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

   It's the nature of the enthusiast to push to the limits. I think that is a given.

   What I (and a quite a few others) find bizarre is that the overclocking/performance gain parameters of the GF110 are already well known. W1zzard himself noted as much when saying that performance gains amount to nil once you start nearing 1.1v (and this on a GPU that has a 5+% higher stock voltage)

   So, riddle me this Batman...Why would you push 1.2v when you already have this evidence on the same GPU ? What evidence is there from this data that 1.2v is going to offer a positive outcome ?

   ahh, maybe the easiest question you have asked me. From what I have been able to tell from follow-up and phone calls from customers, Its because "I am the one doing it" just ego. They all think they have the magic touch. and if only they can get their hands on the controls...they can hit that magic 1Ghz core, or that 4.8Ghz CPU frequency...on air.

   On a related note, w1zzard overclocked the HD6990 using stock (1.12v) voltage- didn't bother to even try 1.175v. Why? Using the same metric applied to the 590 article he could/should have had 1.47v as his upper (or starting) limit.

   That I have no idea. But then i go up in .02 increments, so what do I know?

   Reply
3. March 27, 2011 7:26 PM
   

   dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

   That I have no idea. But then i go up in .02 increments, so what do I know?

   I have a tendency to do likewise. Any fool can overclock by throwing voltage around. The art of overclocking is getting the best performance gain (not necessarily the highest clock either) for the lowest possible stable voltage.

   Maybe w1zz has been in the game so long he can tell what settings need to be applied simply by looking at the pcb. Wish I was that talented.

   Reply
4. March 27, 2011 8:00 PM
   

   red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

   I have a tendency to do likewise. Any fool can overclock by throwing voltage around. The art of overclocking is getting the best performance gain (not necessarily the highest clock either) for the lowest possible stable voltage.

   Maybe w1zz has been in the game so long he can tell what settings need to be applied simply by looking at the pcb. Wish I was that talented.

   Right, it's like palm reading .You just read the tracers!

   Reply
5. March 28, 2011 5:59 PM
   Guest said:

   The SweClocker reviewer denies the 1.2 volt statement from nVidia. In the video he was running the card at 1.02v and at the same core speed as the GTX580. So with new drivers and maybe water cooling you can probably push this card beyond the 580 clocks. Future will tell

   Reply
6. March 28, 2011 9:38 PM
   

   dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

   So, of the eight known GTX 590 fatalities, TPU, Tbreak, Tweaktown and Hardware.fr have all stated that they pushed their cards to 1.21v. The other four are pleading innocence or no comment. Although it sounds as if Lab501's card was DOA- so nvidia successfully tripping itself up yet again.

   So, what's the excuse for Neoseekers HD6990 blowing up?

   ...however, when we were testing the performance of Dragon Age II the HD 6990 died on us. At the time of it's demise the card was set at the stock 830MHz setting and the BIOS switch was in the default position. The fact that it died could have been that we tested the graphics card at both the 375W and 450W settings, but since the review we have left the settings at default level.

   Presently this leaves Neoseeker without a HD 6990 for future testing. AMD will not warranty the card so we are left with no choice but to reach out to their partners to see if we can get a sample

   [source]

   Is it possibly the same reason that the [link] ?*

   And this considering AMD's solution is hardware based, and supposedly is designed with twice the power handling capability of the GTX590

   I think we can safely say that both AMD and Nvidia have effectively found what is, and isn't feasible to stick onto one pcb.

   And while the tribulations of the HD6990 shouldn't have any bearing on failing GTX590 cards, it seems fairly strange that the HD6990 seems immune from criticism. So the GTX590 will in all likelyhood be reworked with beefier VRM's and/or BIOS-locked/driver locked BIOS cap, but what precisely is the fix for the HD6990...assuming it needs one ?

   *chances that these facts become mainstream news I guesstimate at 0 - 10% (based on these posts =#68, #70 from OCC's main guy). I would assume that if OCC/Neoseeker were spreading fud then the AIB's and AMD would be fairly quick to retute the claims since I would (again) assume that the dead cards would be returned to the vendor.

   Can't wait to see who turns out the first three-GPU card.

   Reply

Recently commented stories