Note on GeForce GTX 590 Overcurrent Protection and Overclocking
  1 / 3    
In the web release driver of GeForce GTX 590, we have added some important enhancements to our overcurrent protection for overclocking. We recommend anyone doing overclocking or running stress apps to always use the latest web driver to get the fullest protection for your hardware. Please note that overcurrent protection does not eliminate the risks of overclocking, and hardware damage is possible, particularly when overvoltaging. We recommend anyone using the GTX 590 board with the reference aircooler stick with the default voltage while overclocking, and avoid working around overcurrent protection mechanisms for stress applications. This will help maintain GTX 590's great combination of acoustics, performance, and reliability. NVIDIA has worked with several watercooling companies to develop waterblocks for GTX 590, and these solutions will help provide additional margin for overclocking, but even in this case we recommend enthusiasts stay within 12.5-25mV of the default voltage in order to minimize risk.

These are guidelines only - [b]any overclocking/overvoltaging can void your manufacturer's product warranty.[/b]
In the web release driver of GeForce GTX 590, we have added some important enhancements to our overcurrent protection for overclocking. We recommend anyone doing overclocking or running stress apps to always use the latest web driver to get the fullest protection for your hardware. Please note that overcurrent protection does not eliminate the risks of overclocking, and hardware damage is possible, particularly when overvoltaging. We recommend anyone using the GTX 590 board with the reference aircooler stick with the default voltage while overclocking, and avoid working around overcurrent protection mechanisms for stress applications. This will help maintain GTX 590's great combination of acoustics, performance, and reliability. NVIDIA has worked with several watercooling companies to develop waterblocks for GTX 590, and these solutions will help provide additional margin for overclocking, but even in this case we recommend enthusiasts stay within 12.5-25mV of the default voltage in order to minimize risk.



These are guidelines only - any overclocking/overvoltaging can void your manufacturer's product warranty.

Please send me a PM if I fail to keep up on replying in any specific thread or leave a driver feedback: Driver Feedback

#1
Posted 03/24/2011 05:41 PM   
you might want to edit that voltage /unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
you might want to edit that voltage /unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

Image







Asus Rampage III Extreme, Intel i7 980X @4.6 ghz 24/7 1.39v, 6 GB Dom GT CL7, Tri channel, EK'd Asus GTX 680 Sli , Displays : 3 X Hanns-G HG281D 2D Surround, Case, Xigmatek Elysium, Corsair AX 1200W, Win 7 64, 2 x Crucial C300 128gb 6gb/s SSDs Raid 0, 2 x 300 gig WD velociraptors Raid 0, 64 GB Crucial M4 non raid boot drive 6 g/bs, Asus Xonar DX2 Sound, Roccat Kave 5:1 Headset, Track IR Pro, Noctua and TFC Triebwewrk fans controled by Lamptron FC6 black and Zalman ZM-FC1Plus black, Roccat Isku K/B, Steelseries Sensei mouse, Logitech G27 wheel, Custom water cooling, EK FB RE3 full board block , Black Ice GTX 480 Extreme Quad, Black Ice GTX Extreme 360, both rads running TFC Triebwerk mid speeds, Dual loop 3 D5 pumps.

#2
Posted 03/26/2011 06:50 PM   
[quote name='ManuelG' date='24 March 2011 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1300988481' post='1212639']
In the web release driver of GeForce GTX 590, we have added some important enhancements to our overcurrent protection for overclocking. We recommend anyone doing overclocking or running stress apps to always use the latest web driver to get the fullest protection for your hardware. Please note that overcurrent protection does not eliminate the risks of overclocking, and hardware damage is possible, particularly when overvoltaging. We recommend anyone using the GTX 590 board with the reference aircooler stick with the default voltage while overclocking, and avoid working around overcurrent protection mechanisms for stress applications. This will help maintain GTX 590's great combination of acoustics, performance, and reliability. NVIDIA has worked with several watercooling companies to develop waterblocks for GTX 590, and these solutions will help provide additional margin for overclocking, but even in this case we recommend enthusiasts stay within 12.5-25mV of the default voltage in order to minimize risk.

These are guidelines only - [b]any overclocking/overvoltaging can void your manufacturer's product warranty.[/b]
[/quote]

I want to make sure I understand this, nVidia is saying a water cooled GTX 590 should be kept under 0.988mV (going off the stock 0.963mV) on the core to remove the risk of burning the circuitry or VRMs?

To me it sounds like you have some knowledge of where the breaking point in voltage may occur and if you guys do have some data you could share with the enthusiasts, that would be most helpful in maximize our new toys, while preventing paperweight production. There is a lot of talk of the phase design and it is weaker per GPU versus a GTX 580, but knowing what you guys know can really help benching/gaming/folding. This information can also aid those of us who will use LN2 and DICE for further benchmarking. I mean knowing that adequate cooling is there, it seems like there is still a higher chance of physical damage with overvolting at much lower millivolts than some have anticipated.

I also think everyone would like to hear that running the card at stock clock & voltages (with the exception of an actual physical defect at factory) should not run any form of risk of being damaged regardless of what game or benchmark the user is running. Using the card in the way it was designed for, and in an environment (proper airflow / liquid cooling etc.) that is tolerable to the components.
[quote name='ManuelG' date='24 March 2011 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1300988481' post='1212639']

In the web release driver of GeForce GTX 590, we have added some important enhancements to our overcurrent protection for overclocking. We recommend anyone doing overclocking or running stress apps to always use the latest web driver to get the fullest protection for your hardware. Please note that overcurrent protection does not eliminate the risks of overclocking, and hardware damage is possible, particularly when overvoltaging. We recommend anyone using the GTX 590 board with the reference aircooler stick with the default voltage while overclocking, and avoid working around overcurrent protection mechanisms for stress applications. This will help maintain GTX 590's great combination of acoustics, performance, and reliability. NVIDIA has worked with several watercooling companies to develop waterblocks for GTX 590, and these solutions will help provide additional margin for overclocking, but even in this case we recommend enthusiasts stay within 12.5-25mV of the default voltage in order to minimize risk.



These are guidelines only - any overclocking/overvoltaging can void your manufacturer's product warranty.





I want to make sure I understand this, nVidia is saying a water cooled GTX 590 should be kept under 0.988mV (going off the stock 0.963mV) on the core to remove the risk of burning the circuitry or VRMs?



To me it sounds like you have some knowledge of where the breaking point in voltage may occur and if you guys do have some data you could share with the enthusiasts, that would be most helpful in maximize our new toys, while preventing paperweight production. There is a lot of talk of the phase design and it is weaker per GPU versus a GTX 580, but knowing what you guys know can really help benching/gaming/folding. This information can also aid those of us who will use LN2 and DICE for further benchmarking. I mean knowing that adequate cooling is there, it seems like there is still a higher chance of physical damage with overvolting at much lower millivolts than some have anticipated.



I also think everyone would like to hear that running the card at stock clock & voltages (with the exception of an actual physical defect at factory) should not run any form of risk of being damaged regardless of what game or benchmark the user is running. Using the card in the way it was designed for, and in an environment (proper airflow / liquid cooling etc.) that is tolerable to the components.

[i7 3770K @ 5.0 GHz] | [32 GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws @ 2133 MHz]
[Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H (Rev 1.0)] | [ASUS Xonar Essence STX]
[ASUS Geforce GTX 690 SLI] | [Beyerdynamics DT990 (600?)]

#3
Posted 03/26/2011 07:59 PM   
GTX590 under Linux?

Hi all,
There are no drivers till now for this card. The problem is that I am very afraid to test 2 of them right now, because of the more and more posts that I saw that the card blows up even withhold any overcklocking, just on stock voltage!!?? Actually it is known that Fermi is not possible to be overcklocked under Linux…
Thus I ask you for advice, what to do, to test with the current drivers or wait? Do you think it will be risky?

Regards,
Filip

P.S. I will post this to two sections due to the matter of discussion.
GTX590 under Linux?



Hi all,

There are no drivers till now for this card. The problem is that I am very afraid to test 2 of them right now, because of the more and more posts that I saw that the card blows up even withhold any overcklocking, just on stock voltage!!?? Actually it is known that Fermi is not possible to be overcklocked under Linux…

Thus I ask you for advice, what to do, to test with the current drivers or wait? Do you think it will be risky?



Regards,

Filip



P.S. I will post this to two sections due to the matter of discussion.

#4
Posted 03/29/2011 03:33 PM   
People are ready to do most foolish things to get more performance, and later they claim it was on - STOCK voltage.

Among these "dead GTX 590 on stock voltage", I've myself found at least 4 of them being over-clocked and overvolted.

I have nothing in this, and have blasted Nvidia for various reasons in this forum more then once ,

but I'm utterly amazed by the amount of mass hysteria, animosity, hearsay and plain straightforward lies around this card.










People are ready to do most foolish things to get more performance, and later they claim it was on - STOCK voltage.



Among these "dead GTX 590 on stock voltage", I've myself found at least 4 of them being over-clocked and overvolted.



I have nothing in this, and have blasted Nvidia for various reasons in this forum more then once ,



but I'm utterly amazed by the amount of mass hysteria, animosity, hearsay and plain straightforward lies around this card.




















Image

#5
Posted 03/29/2011 09:31 PM   
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20677


The next iteration of this same rumor came to us late yesterday, with the suggestion that perhaps those web release drivers with overclock protection are limiting clock speeds in games to 550MHz, below the 607MHz base clock for the GTX 590, along with the expected drop in performance. Our response was to install the 269.91 drivers and try them for ourselves. After re-running a portion of our test suite, including AvP, Civ V, and F1 2010, we found zero performance differences between the drivers we used in the review and the public 269.91 package. Also, GPU-Z reported a 607MHz clock speed when we had it log clock frequencies while some of our tests were running. Boring, no? But the GTX 590 still works as expected.
The rumor mill wasn't finished, though. Another assertion of problems reached us yesterday afternoon via different channels, based in part on these sweet thermal camera readings, which clearly show temperatures as high as 112° C at the center of the GTX 590. This info, we were told, proves the GPU's on-die thermal sensors are being programmed to under-report temperatures. The solution? We should try an infrared thermometer aimed at the back of the card, instead.


So we did.
Probably didn't need to, though. If you look carefully at those camera readings, you'll see that the highest temperatures reached in their measurements are for the power regulation circuitry at the center of the card, not the two GPUs on the sides. Our own readings with an IR thermometer showed that the metal plates behind the GPUs were cooler than our prior temperature sensor readings had been. In other words, the sensors were probably not reporting artificially low results. Yes, the power circuitry gets hotter—up to 106° C, in our measurements—but we have no sense that such temperatures constitute a problem. Hot VRMs aren't exactly uncommon.
All of which leads us back to exactly where we started, with no evidence of basic problems in the GTX 590's operation beyond, you know, the initial exploding drivers. Heh. We do have some evidence of additional, sloppily made insinuations of problems, which I suppose shouldn't be too surprising.
Trouble is, a lot of these forum rumors tend to be given tremendous credence by a lot of folks. Heck, every once in a blue moon, one of those rumors blows up into something big because there's a real problem underlying it. That could yet be the case with the GTX 590—or the Radeon HD 6990 or, well, I guess Sandy Bridge already went there. 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.


Over the years, we've found that we could spend a huge proportion of our editors' time tracking down rumored problems of this sort with depressingly few interesting results. It's generally just not a good use of our time, especially because picking out the rumor that might actually have legs is terribly difficult to do at first glance. We did burn a few cycles making a run at some of the latest rumors about the GTX 590, though, and we were at least able to verify the product's proper operation. We've done such things in the past, a number of times, without even writing about it.
We're not sure who benefits more from a post like this one: the company that produced the product, because we're refuting negative rumors, or the competition, who gets to see a competing product's basic engineering questioned in the media. We kind of learn toward the latter, which is why we don't expect rumors of this nature to stop seeping from the darker corners of the 'net any time soon. We continue to puzzle over how best to serve you, the reader, in this context"
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20677





The next iteration of this same rumor came to us late yesterday, with the suggestion that perhaps those web release drivers with overclock protection are limiting clock speeds in games to 550MHz, below the 607MHz base clock for the GTX 590, along with the expected drop in performance. Our response was to install the 269.91 drivers and try them for ourselves. After re-running a portion of our test suite, including AvP, Civ V, and F1 2010, we found zero performance differences between the drivers we used in the review and the public 269.91 package. Also, GPU-Z reported a 607MHz clock speed when we had it log clock frequencies while some of our tests were running. Boring, no? But the GTX 590 still works as expected.

The rumor mill wasn't finished, though. Another assertion of problems reached us yesterday afternoon via different channels, based in part on these sweet thermal camera readings, which clearly show temperatures as high as 112° C at the center of the GTX 590. This info, we were told, proves the GPU's on-die thermal sensors are being programmed to under-report temperatures. The solution? We should try an infrared thermometer aimed at the back of the card, instead.





So we did.

Probably didn't need to, though. If you look carefully at those camera readings, you'll see that the highest temperatures reached in their measurements are for the power regulation circuitry at the center of the card, not the two GPUs on the sides. Our own readings with an IR thermometer showed that the metal plates behind the GPUs were cooler than our prior temperature sensor readings had been. In other words, the sensors were probably not reporting artificially low results. Yes, the power circuitry gets hotter—up to 106° C, in our measurements—but we have no sense that such temperatures constitute a problem. Hot VRMs aren't exactly uncommon.

All of which leads us back to exactly where we started, with no evidence of basic problems in the GTX 590's operation beyond, you know, the initial exploding drivers. Heh. We do have some evidence of additional, sloppily made insinuations of problems, which I suppose shouldn't be too surprising.

Trouble is, a lot of these forum rumors tend to be given tremendous credence by a lot of folks. Heck, every once in a blue moon, one of those rumors blows up into something big because there's a real problem underlying it. That could yet be the case with the GTX 590—or the Radeon HD 6990 or, well, I guess Sandy Bridge already went there. 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.





Over the years, we've found that we could spend a huge proportion of our editors' time tracking down rumored problems of this sort with depressingly few interesting results. It's generally just not a good use of our time, especially because picking out the rumor that might actually have legs is terribly difficult to do at first glance. We did burn a few cycles making a run at some of the latest rumors about the GTX 590, though, and we were at least able to verify the product's proper operation. We've done such things in the past, a number of times, without even writing about it.

We're not sure who benefits more from a post like this one: the company that produced the product, because we're refuting negative rumors, or the competition, who gets to see a competing product's basic engineering questioned in the media. We kind of learn toward the latter, which is why we don't expect rumors of this nature to stop seeping from the darker corners of the 'net any time soon. We continue to puzzle over how best to serve you, the reader, in this context"

Image

#6
Posted 03/29/2011 10:15 PM   
[quote name='nesco1801' date='30 March 2011 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1301436923' post='1215500']
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20677


The next iteration of this same rumor came to us late yesterday, with the suggestion that perhaps those web release drivers with overclock protection are limiting clock speeds in games to 550MHz, below the 607MHz base clock for the GTX 590, along with the expected drop in performance. Our response was to install the 269.91 drivers and try them for ourselves. After re-running a portion of our test suite, including AvP, Civ V, and F1 2010, we found zero performance differences between the drivers we used in the review and the public 269.91 package. Also, GPU-Z reported a 607MHz clock speed when we had it log clock frequencies while some of our tests were running. Boring, no? But the GTX 590 still works as expected.
The rumor mill wasn't finished, though. Another assertion of problems reached us yesterday afternoon via different channels, based in part on these sweet thermal camera readings, which clearly show temperatures as high as 112° C at the center of the GTX 590. This info, we were told, proves the GPU's on-die thermal sensors are being programmed to under-report temperatures. The solution? We should try an infrared thermometer aimed at the back of the card, instead.


So we did.
Probably didn't need to, though. If you look carefully at those camera readings, you'll see that the highest temperatures reached in their measurements are for the power regulation circuitry at the center of the card, not the two GPUs on the sides. Our own readings with an IR thermometer showed that the metal plates behind the GPUs were cooler than our prior temperature sensor readings had been. In other words, the sensors were probably not reporting artificially low results. Yes, the power circuitry gets hotter—up to 106° C, in our measurements—but we have no sense that such temperatures constitute a problem. Hot VRMs aren't exactly uncommon.
All of which leads us back to exactly where we started, with no evidence of basic problems in the GTX 590's operation beyond, you know, the initial exploding drivers. Heh. We do have some evidence of additional, sloppily made insinuations of problems, which I suppose shouldn't be too surprising.
Trouble is, a lot of these forum rumors tend to be given tremendous credence by a lot of folks. Heck, every once in a blue moon, one of those rumors blows up into something big because there's a real problem underlying it. That could yet be the case with the GTX 590—or the Radeon HD 6990 or, well, I guess Sandy Bridge already went there. 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.


Over the years, we've found that we could spend a huge proportion of our editors' time tracking down rumored problems of this sort with depressingly few interesting results. It's generally just not a good use of our time, especially because picking out the rumor that might actually have legs is terribly difficult to do at first glance. We did burn a few cycles making a run at some of the latest rumors about the GTX 590, though, and we were at least able to verify the product's proper operation. We've done such things in the past, a number of times, without even writing about it.
We're not sure who benefits more from a post like this one: the company that produced the product, because we're refuting negative rumors, or the competition, who gets to see a competing product's basic engineering questioned in the media. We kind of learn toward the latter, which is why we don't expect rumors of this nature to stop seeping from the darker corners of the 'net any time soon. We continue to puzzle over how best to serve you, the reader, in this context"
[/quote]

nesco1801 Thank you for the detailed explanation and story!!

I tested my cards several hours by “hard applications”, as such for example quantum chemistry packages, and the truth is that GTX590 is very stable card and the results are very very impressive!!
[quote name='nesco1801' date='30 March 2011 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1301436923' post='1215500']

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20677





The next iteration of this same rumor came to us late yesterday, with the suggestion that perhaps those web release drivers with overclock protection are limiting clock speeds in games to 550MHz, below the 607MHz base clock for the GTX 590, along with the expected drop in performance. Our response was to install the 269.91 drivers and try them for ourselves. After re-running a portion of our test suite, including AvP, Civ V, and F1 2010, we found zero performance differences between the drivers we used in the review and the public 269.91 package. Also, GPU-Z reported a 607MHz clock speed when we had it log clock frequencies while some of our tests were running. Boring, no? But the GTX 590 still works as expected.

The rumor mill wasn't finished, though. Another assertion of problems reached us yesterday afternoon via different channels, based in part on these sweet thermal camera readings, which clearly show temperatures as high as 112° C at the center of the GTX 590. This info, we were told, proves the GPU's on-die thermal sensors are being programmed to under-report temperatures. The solution? We should try an infrared thermometer aimed at the back of the card, instead.





So we did.

Probably didn't need to, though. If you look carefully at those camera readings, you'll see that the highest temperatures reached in their measurements are for the power regulation circuitry at the center of the card, not the two GPUs on the sides. Our own readings with an IR thermometer showed that the metal plates behind the GPUs were cooler than our prior temperature sensor readings had been. In other words, the sensors were probably not reporting artificially low results. Yes, the power circuitry gets hotter—up to 106° C, in our measurements—but we have no sense that such temperatures constitute a problem. Hot VRMs aren't exactly uncommon.

All of which leads us back to exactly where we started, with no evidence of basic problems in the GTX 590's operation beyond, you know, the initial exploding drivers. Heh. We do have some evidence of additional, sloppily made insinuations of problems, which I suppose shouldn't be too surprising.

Trouble is, a lot of these forum rumors tend to be given tremendous credence by a lot of folks. Heck, every once in a blue moon, one of those rumors blows up into something big because there's a real problem underlying it. That could yet be the case with the GTX 590—or the Radeon HD 6990 or, well, I guess Sandy Bridge already went there. 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.





Over the years, we've found that we could spend a huge proportion of our editors' time tracking down rumored problems of this sort with depressingly few interesting results. It's generally just not a good use of our time, especially because picking out the rumor that might actually have legs is terribly difficult to do at first glance. We did burn a few cycles making a run at some of the latest rumors about the GTX 590, though, and we were at least able to verify the product's proper operation. We've done such things in the past, a number of times, without even writing about it.

We're not sure who benefits more from a post like this one: the company that produced the product, because we're refuting negative rumors, or the competition, who gets to see a competing product's basic engineering questioned in the media. We kind of learn toward the latter, which is why we don't expect rumors of this nature to stop seeping from the darker corners of the 'net any time soon. We continue to puzzle over how best to serve you, the reader, in this context"





nesco1801 Thank you for the detailed explanation and story!!



I tested my cards several hours by “hard applications”, as such for example quantum chemistry packages, and the truth is that GTX590 is very stable card and the results are very very impressive!!

#7
Posted 03/30/2011 01:09 AM   
Removed Post
Removed Post

#8
Posted 03/31/2011 01:41 PM   
Lies or not. That's the first time I've seen so many burned out hardware around the web from Nvidia. Even from reviewers who are somewhat "pro" in the area. The card is definitely tuned down engineering monstrosity.
Lies or not. That's the first time I've seen so many burned out hardware around the web from Nvidia. Even from reviewers who are somewhat "pro" in the area. The card is definitely tuned down engineering monstrosity.

2600K/Gigabyte P67/Intel 520 SSD/2x GTX 680 SLI/OCZ ZX 1250W/Win 7 64/Dell U2711

#9
Posted 03/31/2011 06:48 PM   
A 6990 has been running (a bit slower ~65fps using Bioshock CFX profile vs 85fps on GTX590) for over 24 hours now on the same testbench, before that it was running a 6950 with the 6970 (~50fps) unlock applied for a day or so. The GTX590 is a good card, but hopefully they can sort this out with a revised cooler or driver/bios tweaks and turn it into a great card.
A 6990 has been running (a bit slower ~65fps using Bioshock CFX profile vs 85fps on GTX590) for over 24 hours now on the same testbench, before that it was running a 6950 with the 6970 (~50fps) unlock applied for a day or so. The GTX590 is a good card, but hopefully they can sort this out with a revised cooler or driver/bios tweaks and turn it into a great card.

#10
Posted 03/31/2011 11:06 PM   
[quote name='Initialised' date='01 April 2011 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1301612782' post='1217013']
The GTX590 is a great card, but I'm not the only one to see one up in smoke so hopefully they can sort this out with a revised cooler or driver/bios tweaks and turn it into a great card.
[/quote]

Any driver tweaks would be useless if people do things to trick the drivers such as renaming the exe file. The card fried because the drivers thought it was running Crysis instead of Crysis 2, so any safety or throttling measures for Crysis 2 (such as not enabling SLI for that game) was not active and the card went poof. Seems like Nvidia's goal for the GTX 590 was to create the fastest single board card on the planet (spanking AMD's offering) but keeping costs as low as possible with no regards to card longevity or adequate operating margins. I don't care much about their high-end cards since I'll never buy any of those monstrosities, but I hope Nvidia won't take this engineering approach with their mid-range cards in the future. Competition is usually a good thing, but seems like unhealthy competition between Nvidia and AMD may end up forcing them to produce super fast cards with low longevity and almost zero operating margins just to keep production cost as low as possible in order to maximize profits while keeping retail prices low to keep the price war going.
[quote name='Initialised' date='01 April 2011 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1301612782' post='1217013']

The GTX590 is a great card, but I'm not the only one to see one up in smoke so hopefully they can sort this out with a revised cooler or driver/bios tweaks and turn it into a great card.





Any driver tweaks would be useless if people do things to trick the drivers such as renaming the exe file. The card fried because the drivers thought it was running Crysis instead of Crysis 2, so any safety or throttling measures for Crysis 2 (such as not enabling SLI for that game) was not active and the card went poof. Seems like Nvidia's goal for the GTX 590 was to create the fastest single board card on the planet (spanking AMD's offering) but keeping costs as low as possible with no regards to card longevity or adequate operating margins. I don't care much about their high-end cards since I'll never buy any of those monstrosities, but I hope Nvidia won't take this engineering approach with their mid-range cards in the future. Competition is usually a good thing, but seems like unhealthy competition between Nvidia and AMD may end up forcing them to produce super fast cards with low longevity and almost zero operating margins just to keep production cost as low as possible in order to maximize profits while keeping retail prices low to keep the price war going.

CPU: Intel Core i5-2550K @4.4GHz
Mainboard: MSI Z77A-GD43 (Intel Z77 chipset)
Graphics: MSI N660Ti PE 2GD5/OC (GeForce GTX 660 Ti @1019MHz)
RAM: 2 x 4GB Visipro PC3-12800 (1.5V @933MHz)
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Service Pack 1
PSU: Seasonic Eco 600W SS-600BT Active PFC T3
Monitor: Asus VX239H (23" Full HD AH-IPS LED Display)

#11
Posted 04/01/2011 03:06 AM   
But why would u need to have Crysis 2 throtled/no-SLI, when Crysis runs OK and with SLI.

I just dont see Crysis 2 as any more GPU intensive then Crysis, so why OCP/OCP measures on Crysis 2 and not on Crysis?

Provided that trottling and SLI enabling story is true.

But why would u need to have Crysis 2 throtled/no-SLI, when Crysis runs OK and with SLI.



I just dont see Crysis 2 as any more GPU intensive then Crysis, so why OCP/OCP measures on Crysis 2 and not on Crysis?



Provided that trottling and SLI enabling story is true.


Image

#12
Posted 04/01/2011 03:20 AM   
Exactly, the performance I got before it caught fire was the pretty much on the money with what EVGA said (~85fps on Battery Park) on their promo video and Techspot's performance review.
Exactly, the performance I got before it caught fire was the pretty much on the money with what EVGA said (~85fps on Battery Park) on their promo video and Techspot's performance review.

#13
Posted 04/01/2011 10:19 AM   
[quote name='kometata' date='29 March 2011 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1301412828' post='1215292']
GTX590 under Linux?

Hi all,
There are no drivers till now for this card.

Waiting Patiently!! Anybody want to prognosticate when we will see a driver for 64 bit linux. I can't really test things under my cluster environment with Windows, I have no desire to even start setting up a multi-computer environment under Windows. Other than amount of Memory/and ecc it should give perfomance close to a pair of Tesla 2050's with each card. This is what I am waiting to experience? Do I want a pair in a single node or do I want to spread them over 2 nodes and how do the compare to nodes with dual 580's?
Hubert
[quote name='kometata' date='29 March 2011 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1301412828' post='1215292']

GTX590 under Linux?



Hi all,

There are no drivers till now for this card.



Waiting Patiently!! Anybody want to prognosticate when we will see a driver for 64 bit linux. I can't really test things under my cluster environment with Windows, I have no desire to even start setting up a multi-computer environment under Windows. Other than amount of Memory/and ecc it should give perfomance close to a pair of Tesla 2050's with each card. This is what I am waiting to experience? Do I want a pair in a single node or do I want to spread them over 2 nodes and how do the compare to nodes with dual 580's?

Hubert

#14
Posted 04/02/2011 08:39 AM   
I suggest people do not rename .exe's even if troubleshooting SLI (common practice for SLI users, even myself).
The reason I suggest people do not rename .exe's is that:

1) Some games do not like their .exe being renamed and so subsequently do not work
2) I believe that nVidia have Voltage Protection Profiles for the 590 so if you rename the .exe you may not be getting the right level of protection and may risk burning your card.

Apparently this has happened on Xtremesytems Forums and HardOCP forums....something is going on here...

Either that or a lot of mass hysteria caused by the reviews means that even the usual QA failures are now being hyped up.

Anyone who has a card fail on STOCK VOLTAGE and STOCK CLOCKS must contact their board maker/retailer and request an RMA as you are still protected by your warranty.

John
I suggest people do not rename .exe's even if troubleshooting SLI (common practice for SLI users, even myself).

The reason I suggest people do not rename .exe's is that:



1) Some games do not like their .exe being renamed and so subsequently do not work

2) I believe that nVidia have Voltage Protection Profiles for the 590 so if you rename the .exe you may not be getting the right level of protection and may risk burning your card.



Apparently this has happened on Xtremesytems Forums and HardOCP forums....something is going on here...



Either that or a lot of mass hysteria caused by the reviews means that even the usual QA failures are now being hyped up.



Anyone who has a card fail on STOCK VOLTAGE and STOCK CLOCKS must contact their board maker/retailer and request an RMA as you are still protected by your warranty.



John

MSI GTX 580 3GB Lightning XE , Factory Overclocked 832Mhz Core, 1664Mhz Shader and 4200Mhz Memory

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650

ASUS Rampage Extreme X48 Motherboard

8GB of DDR3 @ 1333Mhz CL8

NEC 24WMGX3

Windows 7 x64 with Service Pack 1

Creative Labs X-Fi Fatal1ty

#15
Posted 04/02/2011 11:57 AM   
  1 / 3    
Scroll To Top