ASUS GeForce GTX 590 3072 MB

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Uh, no, you guys just looked at pics, didn't read the text that explains why those figures are where they are.

Rather than telling you why, I'll let you go and check it out for yourself :P

but I likes pictures. lol

ah

Due to NVIDIA's power limiting system being active in our "Furmark Maximum Test", and no way to disable that feature, this data single point should not be considered the maximum possible power consumption as the normal 3D Maximum test show higher power draw than 334 W.

[MicroUnC]

Originally Posted by DanishDevil

I would recommend upping your power supply if you're going to be overclocking either the card or the CPU.

I'll be oc'ing only CPU!

[temp02]

How embarrassing... and thats really all I have to say about this fai... erm... card.

[DanishDevil]

Originally Posted by MicroUnC

I'll be oc'ing only CPU!

I would still suggest something closer to 1000W. My personal favorites are Corsair or Enermax. Feel free to make a new thread, though.

[MicroUnC]

Originally Posted by DanishDevil

I would still suggest something closer to 1000W. My personal favorites are Corsair or Enermax. Feel free to make a new thread, though.

nah.... that's it!

thanks man

[Animalpak]

soo rumors about a revision ??

[H82LUZ73]

Originally Posted by yogurt_21

smoke came out of the 24 pin power connector for the mobo, not the card.

this card seems to be bringing back alot of the fermi original issues. Now don't get me wrong, my 480's run just fine but we should have had the 580 the first time around. It almost seems like nv needs to bring out a revision for the 590 already. perhaps fixing the voltage limiter and upping the clocks, seems like at 700MHZ this card would actually beat the 6990.

all in all it has been a long time since I've seen W1z put up a 7.0 on a flagship card.

No it came from one of the 8 pin power plugs on the card. if it was the Mobo the cpu fan and memory all that area would be like Wizz`s 590 up in smoke.

[DanishDevil]

The video linked from the Swedish overclocking site also suggests that the resistor blew, which sits right next to the 8-pin plugs. W1zz took it one step further and blew out a mosfet as well, though.

[alexsubri]

Wizz's PSU before testing GTX 590


Wizz's PSU after testing GTX 590

[Frick]

Originally Posted by entropy13

They have a safety feature that didn't work. That was the point, how it happened is inconsequential. It's like saying that an airbag not working for a car running at 200mph is not an issue because it happened at 200mph, and not all cars reach 200mph.

No it isn't. I get your point though, and I still don't see it as that bad.

[MicroUnC]

What happaned to Nvidia could happen to anyone, This doesn't make GTX 590 a bad card, or a failure for the company. Besides GTX 590 was produced & will be shipped in limited quantities.

Intel had faulty P67 chipset so what?

And i admit that ATi is a winner here. But i'am still getting the card! cus i support them.

And both company's are great.

[H82LUZ73]

Wizz could the problem be a bad batch of mosfet`s and resistors ? Like they had to use old stock from somewhere ? If that is the case would ASUS and Nvidia wait until Japan is back up and running ...minus the extra radiation power ? Very interesting card to say the least ,It performs to what i was expecting but was also expecting it to overclock better.

[Kreij]

@W1zz ... Why on the Power Consumption page does the text for idle still say "Windows Vista Aero sitting at desktop" ?
Should be 7, no?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by N3M3515

The tests are different, hardocp tests maximun playable settings(meaning if one card has 2x antialias and the other one doesn't, it is because fps will lower beyond playable, which i think it's obvious to understand, specially for you that are well educated at this stuff), and here w1zz tests apples to apples, same resolution, antialias, etc.

I like both, they're different points of view.

The problem is that they are inconsistant even if we assume the reasoning is true.

Again, I'll use the Crysis Warhead benchmark.

For the GTX580 SLi, they raised the shaders to Enthusiast. But for the HD6990 they left the shaders at Gamer and instead raised the AA. If GTX580 SLI can run with enthusiast shaders, and get 30FPS which they consider "playable" then the HD6990 should have been able to do the same, considering they raised AA with that card and it still have 35FPS. Why didn't they increase the shaders instead of AA?

[Dumachi]

1.2v is taking he pee abit aint it?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by alexsubri

Wizz's PSU before testing GTX 590
http://www.youfrenzy.com/wp-content/...lear-Plant.jpg

Wizz's PSU after testing GTX 590
http://guyananewstoday.com/wp-conten...lear-plant.jpg

Thats in horrible taste but damn its funny!

[laszlo]

nice review;i suspect nvidia clocked the cards to this "stock" speed just to avoid the kind of damage occurred during oc.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by laszlo

nice review;i suspect nvidia clocked the cards to this "stock" speed just to avoid the kind of damage occurred during oc.

But there was no damage when overclocked, it occured when changing voltage.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by Kreij

@W1zz ... Why on the Power Consumption page does the text for idle still say "Windows Vista Aero sitting at desktop" ?
Should be 7, no?

wow .. you're the first to notice this since i changed my test system to windows 7 .. fixed! thanks

Originally Posted by Dumachi

1.2v is taking he pee abit aint it?

i dont consider it an unrealistic setting, people are going to tweak this, and with power capping technology they (and i) think "i'll be safe anyway"

[laszlo]

Originally Posted by Frick

But there was no damage when overclocked, it occured when changing voltage.

lol and why u change voltage if not for oc?

[D4S4]

hahahhaha i loled so hard when i read *boom*

[6626]

Seems like it is slower than 2x570 SLI and probably 2x560 SOC SLI but costs more.

No point in 6990 and 590 cards unless you plan to run two of them for quad SLI.

[MxPhenom 216]

guys out of the the million nvidia is making. just because this one card blew up on wizz doesnt mean every other card will. Ill take the 590 over the 6990 in the sacrafice of the 2-3% for the cooler running card, a little bit more efficient, and quieter card.

[rflair]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

guys out of the the million nvidia is making. just because this one card blew up on wizz doesnt mean every other card will. Ill take the 590 over the 6990 in the sacrafice of the 2-3% for the cooler running card, a little bit more efficient, and quieter card.

The 6990 is the more efficient and cooler card, its fan however makes it noisier.

[N3M3515]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

The problem is that they are inconsistant even if we assume the reasoning is true.

Again, I'll use the Crysis Warhead benchmark.

For the GTX580 SLi, they raised the shaders to Enthusiast. But for the HD6990 they left the shaders at Gamer and instead raised the AA. If GTX580 SLI can run with enthusiast shaders, and get 30FPS which they consider "playable" then the HD6990 should have been able to do the same, considering they raised AA with that card and it still have 35FPS. Why didn't they increase the shaders instead of AA?

Because increasing the shaders would have caused a larger performance hit than raising AA(as i understand they have diff architectures amd/nvidia, so what affects one, may not affect the other.).
imho('cause i didn`t do the tests)