ASUS GeForce GTX 590 3 GB

[CDdude55]

Re-branding, Fermi, and now this. ATI has had nothing but win cards since the 48xx series.

Well the 48xx series cards were super inefficient (besides the 4850 on down), my old 4870 ran hotter then my current GTX 470. and the 4870 X2 is still the highest power consuming card to date.

They did a great job with the HD 5800/HD 6000 series though.

 

[btarunr]

i'm not your average consumer

Does NVIDIA give you something it doesn't give "average consumers", or does it charge you less? If neither, you're an average consumer.

 

[Easy Rhino]

jen hsun has to setup a plan well ahead that is executed so that it is independent of any insider information he may have.

if he could sell at any time he could obviously sell at the best time for himself

the SEC has extensive documentation on this

exactly. the SEC does this with pretty much every executive paid in stock. and just about every executive with a good lawyer buys and sells stock using some sort of third party.

Does NVIDIA give you something it doesn't give "average consumers", or does it charge you less? If neither, you're an average consumer.

when given the choice in a mutual fund to choose a stock between AMD, NVDA and INTC I did some research and found nvidia to be a far better bet in the long run. i think from there you can put 2 and 2 together.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Well the 48xx series cards were super inefficient (besides the 4850 on down), my old 4870 ran hotter then my current GTX 470. and the 4870 X2 is still the highest power consuming card to date.

They did a great job with the HD 5800/HD 6000 series though.

Efficiency? When the hell has that mattered to the enthusiast market. I remember someone saying on here "Ill rape my dead grandmother as long as Fermi is faster then 5970" or something to that effect. OC is all people care about. After that heat but few even care about that as long as swifttech is in business.

when given the choice in a mutual fund to choose a stock between AMD, NVDA and INTC I did some research and found nvidia to be a far better bet in the long run. i think from there you can put 2 and 2 together.

So you bought stock in Nvidia? Moron. Didn't you learn anything from my mistake?! I was a retard when I bought AMD years ago. You know better Easy....or maybe you don't. STAY OUT OF THE TECH MARKET!

 

[Easy Rhino]

So you bought stock in Nvidia? Moron. Didn't you learn anything from my mistake?! I was a retard when I bought AMD years ago. You know better Easy....or maybe you don't. STAY OUT OF THE TECH MARKET!

i bought at one of nvidias lowest points...

 

[btarunr]

when given the choice in a mutual fund to choose a stock between AMD, NVDA and INTC I did some research and found nvidia to be a far better bet in the long run. i think from there you can put 2 and 2 together.

Oh I see, this is a stock market debate, not a consumer debate. Sorry, I didn't read the older posts.

 

[TheMailMan78]

i bought at one of nvidias lowest points...

God speed man. God speed............what you just said is what I thought at the time. Lost 14k on the deal.

 

[Easy Rhino]

God speed man. God speed............what you just said is what I thought at the time. Lost 14k on the deal.

lol. that is not "winning"

 

[CDdude55]

Efficiency? When the hell has that mattered to the enthusiast market. I remember someone saying on here "Ill rape my dead grandmother as long as Fermi is faster then 5970" or something to that effect. OC is all people care about. After that heat but few even care about that as long as swifttech is in business.

I don't see how you can think that enthusiasts don't care for efficiency, yes the enthusiast market is more tolerant of high heat and power, but that doesn't mean it's ok for cards to be released like that and go unnoticed, i also don't understand how you can go after Nvidias inefficient designs, but then defend ATI's inefficient designs by perpetuating the age old argument that it's fine for the enthusiast community as long as it's from the brand you prefer, whether a card ''blows up'' from a certain manufacturer or not is irrelevant, we need cards that work efficiently no matter if were using stock or aftermarket, which is something the GTX 590 failed to do, just like how the the 4870's ran at 89c when overclocked. It's needs to get fixed.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't see how you can think that enthusiasts don't care for efficiency, yes the enthusiast market is more tolerant of high heat and power, but that doesn't mean it's ok for cards to be released like that and go unnoticed, i also don't understand how you can go after Nvidias inefficient designs, but then defend ATI's inefficient designs by perpetuating the age old argument that it's fine for the enthusiast community as long as it's from the brand you prefer, whether a card ''blows up'' from a certain manufacturer or not is irrelevant, we need cards that work efficiently no matter if were using stock or aftermarket, which is something the GTX 590 failed to do, just like how the the 4870's ran at 89c when overclocked. It's needs to get fixed.

I never went after Nvidias efficiency. I could care less. You are the one who brought that up. Efficiency isnt a big deal. Cards blowing up is.

lol. that is not "winning"

No thats before I was injected with TIGER BLOOD!

 

[CDdude55]

I never went after Nvidias efficiency. I could care less. You are the one who brought that up. Efficiency isnt a big deal. Cards blowing up is.

And there it is the second time, the argument that inefficient designs don't matter depending the severity of the issue. Whether a card ''blows up'' is irrelevant, any internal hardware or external software inefficiency needs and should to be fixed. You have again loosely said that whether a card runs super hot or consumes buckets of power isn't a concern because at least it hasn't ''blown up'', so you are willfully ignoring other widespread issues based on a line of cards you possibly prefer by using that blanket argument that it doesn't matter in those cases simply because ''it didn't blow up''. I love it.

Even in the Fermi review you said:

Well that is true HOWEVER that GPU is WAY to hot for what it does.

But i don't get it, i thought inefficient designs didn't matter?, where was that argument in that thread?. Oh , right, at least it didn't ''blow up''.

 

[erocker]

But they run cooler though.

 

[TheMailMan78]

And there it is the second time, the argument that inefficient designs don't matter depending the severity of the issue. Whether a card ''blows up'' is irrelevant, any internal hardware or external software inefficiency needs and should to be fixed. You have again loosely said that whether a card runs super hot or consumes buckets of power isn't a concern because at least it hasn't ''blown up'', so you are willfully ignoring other widespread issues based on a line of cards you possibly prefer by using that blanket argument that it doesn't matter in those cases simply because ''it didn't blow up''. I love it.

Even in the Fermi review you said:



But i don't get it, i thought inefficient designs didn't matter?, where was that argument in that thread?. Oh , right, at least it didn't ''blow up''.

You do know heat and efficiency are two different things? Also that heat is tolerable if the performance justifies it. When the fermi hit the market it was FAR hotter then AMD's offerings and gave a very minor boost. Not worth the heat it produced. Few cared. Most put them under water if they HAD to have an Nvidia product (mostly folders and crunchers). Smart people knew their was other choices (or people who didn't fold.). Fermi has come a LONG was since then. I wouldn't hesitate getting a 470 or a 580 now.

Anyway you are the only person who brought up anything about efficiency. I never said anything about it. I also never said 6990 was a great card. I just said it was a better designed card then the 590. I find both the 6990 and the 590 useless.

Oh and I "prefer" what gives me the best deal when I am in the market for a GPU. So smoke that in your pipe.

But they run cooler though.

Yeah well hes nerd raging right now. Facts like that are ignored.

 

[CDdude55]

You do know heat and efficiency are two different things? Also that heat is tolerable if the performance justifies it. When the fermi hit the market it was FAR hotter then AMD's offerings and gave a very minor boost. Not worth the heat it produced. Few cared. Most put them under water if they HAD to have an Nvidia product (mostly folders and crunchers). Smart people knew their was other choices (or people who didn't fold.). Fermi has come a LONG was since then. I wouldn't hesitate getting a 470 or a 580 now.

Anyway you are the only person who brought up anything about efficiency. I never said anything about it. I also never said 6990 was a great card. I just said it was a better designed card then the 590. I find both the 6990 and the 590 useless.

Oh and I "prefer" what gives me the best deal when I am in the market for a GPU. So smoke that in your pipe.

Yes, that Fermi point is true, that's why Fermi was an inefficient design, because it pushed significantly more heat and power but performance didn't match that heat or power output. I never said heat purely determines efficiency, it's the scaling of heat and power for how much performance it pushes. My original argument was your statements about how efficiency in general is unimportant which i consider to be untrue, but then you say that it doesn't matter that the 4800 series were inefficient(yes, they output more heat and consume more power then they push out performance wise) but then somehow you flip the argument over when talking about Fermi and the 590, saying that actual heat and power output does matter. Saying that just as long at it doesn't ''blow up'' is false and disingenuous imo, it seems like you're saying that depending on the actual design flaw warrants a card to be looked at and im saying all cards that are flawed in design warrant a fixing no matter the severity of the issue.

That's all i was saying.

And im glad to hear you pick value over brand, which is what really matters.

Yeah well hes nerd raging right now. Facts like that are ignored.

Didn't notice that post actually lol, but yes, again, no one is denying they're inefficient.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yes, that Fermi point is true, that's why Fermi was an inefficient design, because it pushed significantly more heat and power but performance didn't match that heat or power output. I never said heat purely determines efficiency, it's the scaling of heat and power for how much performance it pushes. My original argument was your statements about how efficiency in general is unimportant which i consider to be untrue, but then you say that it doesn't matter that the 4800 series were inefficient(yes, they output more heat and consume more power then they push out performance wise) but then somehow you flip the argument over when talking about Fermi and the 590, saying that actual heat and power output does matter. Saying that just as long at it doesn't ''blow up'' is false and disingenuous imo, it seems like you're saying that depending on the actual design flaw warrants a card to be looked at and im saying all cards that are flawed in design warrant a fixing no matter the severity of the issue.

That's all i was saying.

And im glad to hear you pick value over brand, which is what really matters.



Didn't notice that post actually lol, but yes, again, no one is denying they're inefficient.

4870X2 was inefficient. But thats to be somewhat expected in a duel GPU card. The 4870 and 4850 in particular were very good for what they cost. 4850 was probably the best bang for the buck at the time.

The 590s efficiency wasn't even expected. Its a duel GPU card. They are all about power (Or should be.) Bragging about the 590 efficiency is like bragging about your Mustangs gas mileage. Who gives a shit. The problem is the damn thing blew up. I mean really? What good is a Mustangs gas mileage if the engine blows on the first run? Savvy?

 

[erocker]

Bottom line is the power circuitry is insufficient for this card. There's no excuse for it especially for the price of the card.

 

[CDdude55]

4870X2 was inefficient. But thats to be somewhat expected in a duel GPU card. The 4870 and 4850 in particular were very good for what they cost. 4850 was probably the best bang for the buck at the time.

The 590s efficiency wasn't even expected. Its a duel GPU card. They are all about power (Or should be.) Bragging about the 590 efficiency is like bragging about your Mustangs gas mileage. Who gives a shit. The problem is the damn thing blew up. I mean really? What good is a Mustangs gas mileage if the engine blows on the first run? Savvy?

I agree, i definitely think the 590 has some very series issues, especially if people are having these issues with everything at bone stock.

Whether a card is efficient or not should matter, and both camps have/had issues with properly designing video cards, whether they blew up or not.

I just hope they fix this issue.

 

[erocker]

I agree, i definitely think the 590 has some very series issues, especially if people are having these issues with everything at bone stock.

Whether a card is efficient or not should matter, and both camps have/had issues with properly designing video cards, whether they blew up or not.

I just hope they fix this issue.

At least one "camp" knows how to make a card without cheaping out on components. Prehaps Nvidia can fix the issue by redesigning their cards.

 

[CDdude55]

At least one "camp" knows how to make a card without cheaping out on components.

Sure...

Prehaps Nvidia can fix the issue by redesigning their cards

I agree, and i hope they do it within a decent time frame.

 

[bpgt64]

Most the reports I have read deal with volt moding causing the card to explode. There are a few reviews that show decent overclocks without volt modding.

To me it seems like there might have been a defect in that particular resistor, and a recall MIGHT be in order if slight over clocking causes the card to fail.

 

[erocker]

\


I agree, and i hope they do it within a decent time frame.

Probably not, though their partners will most likely be able to come up with something adequate before the next series of cards.

 

[thedude74]

I believe the pcb and vrm situation on the 580 lightning facilitated a stable 1.35V, try that on a reference GTX580 if you dare.

Exactly.

I love how he twists the words of people on the forums in his remarks to suit his point. A reference 580 is not supposed to be clocked at even 1.2v and everyone knows this. Pretending that it's not true by using an extreme overclockers card just makes them look disingenuous.

No one ever said that an upgraded version of a 580 couldn't do 1.2v, so showing the lightning doing that means nothing.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

mirror mirror Erocker......
Maybe there was an alternate reality where Nvidia's 590 was a success ...

 

[Akrian]

the high end most likely. Good luck grabbing a 580 at $350, or 6990 at $500 where the prices should be. .(

Well I DID grab my 580s for 400. And after selling my 480s the upgrade from 480s to 580s cost me 200$ total, which is pretty good. I wish 6990 was at 500$ though... my second PC would love it just as much as I would

The thing that makes Nvidia stand out is their marketing politics, they simply go for the crowd, which in return produces those amazing myths that were true a loong time ago : Nvidia's always faster, and Nvidia has better drivers. Nvidia and ATI/AMD both had their victories and fails in terms of their products, and ATI drivers have been good for quite some time now ( at least they don't burn your cards lol).
And that's the same reason why 590 will sell -> agressive marketing.

 

[wolf]

http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/item/22274-gtx-590-bios-is-good-no-changes

the fail seems to be almost entirely that of Asus, not nvidia or the 590 itself.