• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*The GTX590 Club*

Mojo said:
However, this begs the question as to what will happen to the cards when overclocked, seeing as they will probably bring in some heavy OCP.
Click to expand...

That was answered by Ejizz :)

If you overclock the cards, they cripple themselves and you get absolutely terrible performance.

Two GTX 560s are far faster than this crappy card, they overclock like mad without blowing up or slowing down.

GTX 590 blows up if overclocked. GTX 570 hs been shown to blow up when overclocked too. GTX 580 + 480 dont blow up, but they run really really hot. The 480 is good at £200 though, but I still wouldnt want one.
 
GJ02 said:
Could this be the worst graphics card release in the history of graphics card releases ?
If no, what was ?
Click to expand...

I think it is to be honest in terms of just the card itself and not the material impact on the company.

It blows up at stock settings and has virtually no overclock potential
 
bhavv said:
That was answered by Ejizz :)

If you overclock the cards, they cripple themselves and you get absolutely terrible performance.

Two GTX 560s are far faster than this crappy card, they overclock like mad without blowing up or slowing down.

GTX 590 blows up if overclocked. GTX 570 hs been shown to blow up when overclocked too. GTX 580 + 480 dont blow up, but they run really really hot. The 480 is good at £200 though, but I still wouldnt want one.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 580 doesn't run really, really hot on air although I can't comment because mine is underwater and that runs very, very cool.
 
Last edited:
The 590 sounds like the issue with the mobile GPU part that effected Dell laptops and others. They tried to mask it with a BIOS update which effectively increased the cooling at the expense of noise. Not sure if they effected clocks. Eventually they set aside money for the effected parts. Rubbish!

Bottom line don't jump onto the latest and greatest. Wait and let the dust settle.
 
The Asgard said:
The 590 sounds like the issue with the mobile GPU part that effected Dell laptops and others. They tried to mask it with a BIOS update which effectively increased the cooling at the expense of noise. Not sure if they effected clocks. Eventually they set aside money for the effected parts. Rubbish!

Bottom line don't jump onto the latest and greatest. Wait and let the dust settle.[/QUOTE]

This is good advise! There is always risk with anything as soon as it comes out. Especially something at the bleeding edge of technology. I'd bet the v2 cards of the 590 will be fine with upgraded components where needed. It looks like the failures have all been similar so there is hope the rest of the design is sound. Its a question of how soon new uprated designs can be built and produced in volume to save the user's faith in the item!:confused:
Click to expand...
 
The Asgard said:
The 590 sounds like the issue with the mobile GPU part that effected Dell laptops and others. They tried to mask it with a BIOS update which effectively increased the cooling at the expense of noise. Not sure if they effected clocks. Eventually they set aside money for the effected parts. Rubbish!
Click to expand...

It's a completely different issue that's causing the cards to die, but your right Nvidia is trying to limit the number of cards dying via software revisions rather than a real hardware fix. Hopefully as this should be a relatively simple hardware fix, it won't take too long for it to be fixed unlike the mobile GPU problem. However Nvidia may decide not to bother wasting time and resources considering AMD has taped out 28nm chips already.


The Asgard said:
Bottom line don't jump onto the latest and greatest. Wait and let the dust settle.
Click to expand...

Why? you can always send it back...
 
No need to diss the 570. Not all GTX 570s blow up. Perhaps if you disable all the safety features and push a shed load of voltage through it that it's not designed to take? Well maybe it will blow up but what do you expect ?

I'm perfectly happy with my 570. At stock volts - 0.918 - and with the stock cooler, it will happily sit at 825 core all day long and temps never go above 70 with 70% fans. If I had more airflow through the case then I could easily push 850 I reckon but I just hate fan noise. The 2x140 fans on my Noctua spin at 750 RPM and the 2 x 120mm case fans I got are racked right back on a controller. Not exactly hardcore cooling to achieve 580 performance for 570 prices?
 
Boge said:
No need to diss the 570. Not all GTX 570s blow up. Perhaps if you disable all the safety features and push a shed load of voltage through it that it's not designed to take? Well maybe it will blow up but what do you expect ?

I'm perfectly happy with my 570. At stock volts - 0.918 - and with the stock cooler, it will happily sit at 825 core all day long and temps never go above 70 with 70% fans. If I had more airflow through the case then I could easily push 850 I reckon but I just hate fan noise. The 2x140 fans on my Noctua spin at 750 RPM and the 2 x 120mm case fans I got are racked right back on a controller. Not exactly hardcore cooling to achieve 580 performance for 570 prices?
Click to expand...

what about 570's that croak it at 1.038 volts with no safeties turned off?
 
what about 570's that croak it at 1.038 volts with no safeties turned off?
Click to expand...

Without wishing to sound too antagonistic is that a "stock" voltage?

Or just someone dicking around? As you do...
 
Boge said:
Without wishing to sound too antagonistic is that a "stock" voltage?

Or just someone dicking around? As you do...
Click to expand...

The issue is it will blow up quite frequently by all accounts, at the SAME settings you would put a 480/580gtx under in terms of voltage/clocks/loads. In other words, just like the 590gtx, theres a distinctly different "usability" pattern. IE 580gtx, whack volts through it, the card won't blow, overclock the hell out of it. Do the same to a 570gtx, good chance of it blowing, max safe volts is seemingly drastically different. Yet the cores are identical, its the cards, or more specifically, the power circuitry.

They gave the 580/480gtx plenty of headroom in that department, the 570gtx and 590gtx have been using as cheap parts for power as possible really, with the 590gtx SOOOO borderline that some cards are dying at stock and quite a few more are dying with basically any voltage increase.

The cores themselves on 570/590gtx are good to well beyond 1.1v, the power circuitry is awful on the 590gtx, and supposedly quite bad on a 570gtx.

As for 580gtx's, they do run hot, less hot is still hot ;) its more the power they can use and the noise that make people really call the 480gtx so bad.

Yet, take the limiter off a 580gtx and test in Furmark which is the main thing that made the 480gtx look so incredibly bad, and the 580gtx doesn't look great either.

Doesn't matter much, Furmark is the single most pointless benchmark/stability test/card killer around today, offers no useful end information, has no bearing on in game stability or in game power levels/heat/noise readings.

Would be good for AMD/Nvidia to simply refuse to allow Furmark/Kombuster to run to stop people using it.
 
Crap..this sucks! a card that costs a bomb and then explodes in your case to rub it in your face.

Buying this is a risk imo, they should not be allowed to sell it, and there should be a total recall. The card blowing up can f up other hardware.

Way to go Nvidia
 
bought one

Well I just bought one and am very happy with it.
Over the years I have tried ATI cards, not being a fanboy one way or another.

My first ATi experience was with a card whose name I don’t recall (but I am sure someone will remember it) which IIRC was the first with 2 processors (RageMaxx 128 something or other??). This was back when latest O/S was XP and most people were running that or Win2K, only problem was there were no drivers (ever made!!) for either W2K or Xp (I forget which it was) and therefore back to the shop it went for a 4xxx Ti from Nvidia which was a brilliant card for its time and lasted me ages.

Whats more though, it installed, loaded drivers, played games…no fuss.
Then I tried some more Nvidia, SLI 7900GTX, brilliant cards, still have them both, used at slight OC and never ever gave me any problems in any way.

Then I got some 8800GT in SLI which were amazingly cheap and had brilliant performance , I kept them at stock clocks and used passive (no fans) aftermarket coolers on them and I still have both those as well!

Then I though the ATI 4870x2 looked really good and decided I should give ATI another try (it had been years since all the previous hassle I had suffered). Well damn that thing was noisy coming from Nvidia products and the drivers (and I tried a lot of diff ones) were frankly not as good at driving that hardware as the Nvidia drivers were on their cards. I suffered noise, random artefacts (and no the card wasn’t broken), random crashes, corruption of my OS, the list goes on and I said F This, sold the card for half what I paid and bought a GTX295

Yup, that 295 went in smooth and worked perfectly first time and never gave me any trouble at all with a small OC and normal air cooling.

So when I looked at the benches for 69xx v 590 it was obvious there was not much between them (see note below)
NB. I game at high res on a 30’’ monitor with all eye candy on playing FPS, Online, Strategy stuff for some perspective when I talk about performance and tend to refresh every 18 months (CPU,MB+graphics)
So in my mind it came down to:
Which is the quietest
Which will cause me least grief
Which will have better driver support
Which is coolest
The GTX590 won on all counts in my opinion. Sure the ATI card has a few % more FPS in some games but I have to tell you that when you get a min FPS of say 50-70 and a max of say 120 in a particular game then changing those numbers by even as much as 10% doesn’t mean anything to your gameplay experience AT ALL. What DOES make a diff to your gameplay experience is reliability, noise, driver issues etc etc.

If you want to extreme OC and only care about raw benchmark numbers then there may be a case for the ATI card in some scenarios (or you could just have driver version 270.x+ and WC the GTX’s 
So for me, moving to Sandy Bridge with a OC I7 2600 on Z68 Giga UD5, the GTX was the perfect choice and its as quiet and as smooth as it is reliable and i am thinking hard about buying another one (just because..)
 
Last edited:
bloom_meister said:
Well I just bought one and am very happy with it.
Over the years I have tried ATI cards, not being a fanboy one way or another.

My first ATi experience was with a card whose name I don’t recall (but I am sure someone will remember it) which IIRC was the first with 2 processors (RageMaxx 128 something or other??). This was back when latest O/S was XP and most people were running that or Win2K, only problem was there were no drivers (ever made!!) for either W2K or Xp (I forget which it was) and therefore back to the shop it went for a 4xxx Ti from Nvidia which was a brilliant card for its time and lasted me ages.

Whats more though, it installed, loaded drivers, played games…no fuss.
Then I tried some more Nvidia, SLI 7900GTX, brilliant cards, still have them both, used at slight OC and never ever gave me any problems in any way.

Then I got some 8800GT in SLI which were amazingly cheap and had brilliant performance , I kept them at stock clocks and used passive (no fans) aftermarket coolers on them and I still have both those as well!

Then I though the ATI 4870x2 looked really good and decided I should give ATI another try (it had been years since all the previous hassle I had suffered). Well damn that thing was noisy coming from Nvidia products and the drivers (and I tried a lot of diff ones) were frankly not as good at driving that hardware as the Nvidia drivers were on their cards. I suffered noise, random artefacts (and no the card wasn’t broken), random crashes, corruption of my OS, the list goes on and I said F This, sold the card for half what I paid and bought a GTX295

Yup, that 295 went in smooth and worked perfectly first time and never gave me any trouble at all with a small OC and normal air cooling.

So when I looked at the benches for 69xx v 590 it was obvious there was not much between them (see note below)
NB. I game at high res on a 30’’ monitor with all eye candy on playing FPS, Online, Strategy stuff for some perspective when I talk about performance and tend to refresh every 18 months (CPU,MB+graphics)
So in my mind it came down to:
Which is the quietest
Which will cause me least grief
Which will have better driver support
Which is coolest
The GTX590 won on all counts in my opinion. Sure the ATI card has a few % more FPS in some games but I have to tell you that when you get a min FPS of say 50-70 and a max of say 120 in a particular game then changing those numbers by even as much as 10% doesn’t mean anything to your gameplay experience AT ALL. What DOES make a diff to your gameplay experience is reliability, noise, driver issues etc etc.

If you want to extreme OC and only care about raw benchmark numbers then there may be a case for the ATI card in some scenarios (or you could just have driver version 270.x+ and WC the GTX’s 
So for me, moving to Sandy Bridge with a OC I7 2600 on Z68 Giga UD5, the GTX was the perfect choice and its as quiet and as smooth as it is reliable and i am thinking hard about buying another one (just because..)
Click to expand...

each to their own i guess lol, I ended up going back to a 5870 after fermi as the noise and pure heat output was too much. one thing i dont get, you pointed reliability as a point to buying a 590?? or were you on about the 580?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom