Hi
Nice document
I have a aopen Aeolus gefroce 6800le
I was try the cap mod but doesnt work on my aopen
I dont what can i do?
The capacitors on that card were C136 = 4 3 470 6E
I have a bs problem I was try to find a capacitor but that is really dicicult to find,
Someboy know where can I find the capacitors?
thanks
Good point: sizes can vary :) . I also investigated datasheets (once again..), but I not sure whether we can found relevant differences. The specified sizes vary BUT there are following tolerances e.g. for diameter:Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealuniverse
- CV-EX + 0.5 mm (maybe should be +/-)
- EVS +/- 0.5 mm
.. I will try anyway tomorrow (I have pair of "4 3 470 6E" and "4 7 470 6E" inside PC) with this apparatus (I do not remember english word):
http://www.savenmaa.fi//tuotekuvat/suuri_879.jpg
--
I have been thinking more about the labels. I have scanned fotos of three different cards and here comes very accurate figure of corresponding capacitors. It is interesting that in this figure are all (relevant) different capacitor models:
- '4 3 470 6E' (used by GW, MSI, BS ASAP)
- '4 8 470 6E' (used at least by GW BS later)
- '4 7 470 6E' (used at least by GW, MSI BS maybe..)
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/385...ors02ai.th.jpg
I think that the font IS different with '4 7 470 6E', what you think ? Hitano ?
Thank you for codes :), I'll try to find some 'logic' of those codes later..Quote:
Originally Posted by robb-x
--
I hope your mod keeps going, it depends on used capaciotor (quality), how much you are using computer etc. I am sure OC'ing speeds up BS-process, so having stock values the card can last much longer.
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by jromon
Did you put the capacitor between TP9-TP10 or TP1 ? What kind of capacitor you used, low-ESR, capacitance value ? Long wires ?
About finding capacitors, where you live ?
Thanks for your replyQuote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
I live on Madrid ,Spain
I was try tp1 capacitor with 3300uf 6,3 v but doesnt work (long wires),
Only I can work if I do underclock 330 / 600 if I try 700 I can seen artefacts on screen in special doom3 and hl2
Sorry about my english
I hope that you can understand me
Give a try to the enhanced version since in many cases it gives better performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jromon
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4061/capmod35gz.th.jpg
Please post how it succeeded :)
I wrote after last modifications I was able to run stable at 925 MHz. I was wrong. my card was overclocked later to 972 MHz.
today i soldered C3 out.
measured C1 C2 C3.
results are:
C1 = 47nF
C2 = 5 nF
C3 = 25(!) nF (22 or 33?)
just for experiment I soldered C3=10nF on my card. it is stable now at 972Mhz again.
more Mhz - artifacts. no BS!
current config C1=100nF,C2=C3=10nF.
you could have a point there, it does like like a similar but different font was used, but why was Hitano's caps just used for one version and then went back to sanyo's. I think another theory might be needed. also the base sizes and length of the capacitor would be slightly different in the two cases, hoping that average capacitors are exactly as specified in the data sheets then there should be a measureable difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
Its a real pity that they don't put sanyo on the side or something.
HiQuote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
Just a couple minutes ago I did the cap mod tp9 tp10 but I haven´t any diferent
:(
I was try (3300uf at 6,3v)
I don´t know what can i do?
I think that the best solution is replace the bad capacitors
The problem is :
Where can I find a good capacitors?
Im not sure but, would you like a couple of pictures of my card?
Thank you VERY much about those values :toast: (I'll try to simulate also with those to see the difference).Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcv
Your experiments are so interesting, that I have to think/simulate more before to draw final conclusions. I also will check out (once again) my measurements/calculations.. Your card is Leadtek (and had originally "4 6 470 6E" caps?), and therefore newer than the very first cards. Maybe, Leadtek modified those values (after reported BS-feature) OR in fact many/most vendors have different feedback capacitor configurations.
Could you post the exact labels top of Epcos-capacitors (anything else except '197-A' ?
----
By the way, you have a nice OC-frequency, I wonder you are quite happy now ;)
I mean after they go for Hitano never back to Sanyo !!! The GW version 1 ('4 3 470 6E') and 2 ('4 8 470 6E') are older than version 1 b ('4 7 470 6E') in respect of when appeared to market. The version 1 b (I investigated) have older components than version 2 (I had earlier and RMA'd) and this version 1b have modified feedback capaciotors and Hitano's (?). So, after BS-affected cards were found *them* found a solution to overcome problem: feedback modifiaction (=TRUE) and Hitano's-capacitors (=still speculation). After that point all cards should have Hitano's (old RMA'd were modified), and the lot codes became totally meshed. Using this theory one can write following list:Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealuniverse
'4 3 470 6E' = CV-EX
'4 8 470 6E' = CV-EX
'4 X 470 6E' = Hitano's (?) X = 4,5,6,7,9 (2)
(I wonder some old MSI's having BS were using '4 9 470 6E' = CV-EX?)
--
Could anybody provide HIGH resolution (scanned e.g. 300dpi) foto of these green capacitors having labels '4 X 470 6E' X = 2,4,5,6,7,9 ???
If you not afraid to replace capacitors (have some soldering skills), that is the best advice I can give. I'll send for you a PM about caps ;)..Quote:
Originally Posted by jromon
--
Fotos are allways nice :) , please post if easy to arrange
Thanks for your replyQuote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
this is my geforce´s pcb
I have a solderind skills
<a href="http://img385.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pcb9ic.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/2212/pcb9ic.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
Good & Interesting fotos :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by jromon
--
When comparing to fotos posted by 'sunn' (newer version):
<a href="http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aopen6800le17gc.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7651/aopen6800le17gc.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
<a href="http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aopen6800le22nv.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/3430/aopen6800le22nv.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
.. some differences have be noticed
- In old version (by 'jromon') some ceramic coupling capacitors are smaller, but in the bottom side of the card there are large ceramics (=for Vmem) in the both cards
- Only 'relevant' difference is "4 3 470 6E" vs "4 5 470 6E" capacitor (are the fonts between those different ??, I cannot say
--
'jromon' : I sent a private message for you about capacitors, did you get it ?
i could take a picture of my card with its 4 5 caps if you would like it. it might help to find the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
Fine :up: Yes, the more fotos are the easier is to analyze fonts/codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealuniverse
--
I measure physical dimensions of "4 3 470 6E" and "4 7 470 6E" capacitors. The 'scales' I used has accuracy of 0.05 mm, BUT I could not measure any significant difference at any dimension. So, I wonder the physical size cannot be used to distinguish CV-EX and EVS capacitors (pity).
its a pity you cannot use size to find the difference between them. I'll post the picture at the weekend when i have more time to mess around.Quote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
I noticed one important detail related to differences between EVS vs CV-EX -capacitors. Take a look these captions of datasheets:Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealuniverse
http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/4...xds21bc.th.jpg
http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/9...sds20ey.th.jpg
.. the sizes of 470uF 6.3 V capacitors are completely different !! So, these capacitors (c136& c143) CAN NOT be Hitono' EVS-series (except there is an error in datasheet..)
i thought when i had a close look at it that the sizes were different. so that proves that we are on sanyo's CV-EX capaitors. It also now stick the question in the air of, why are the 4 4 and the 4 6 capacitors faulty and the 4 5 are supposidly not. its quite strange how the 4 5 is the only batch that has turned out alright, or is it because they are rare and infomation isn't availiable on wether they BS or not. I'll post my pics late today or early tomorrow with the 4 5 capsQuote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
The term faulty is little bit wrong or at least 'misleading'. Maybe better term would be 'there are major differences between capacitor lots'. I am going to refine so aspect to the document, using following guidelines:Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealuniverse
- Capacitor codes of c136 and c143 ( "4 x 470 6E" x indicating manufacturing lot) correspond highly to the version of card
- There are some (major) differences in electrical parameters of c136 and c143 between lots
- In addition to capacitor lots some other changes have been done to different versions e.g. feedback component values of switching regulator
- Feedback modification has a HUGE effect on BS-probability
- I propose that the cards having mofied feedback are working better at least when new(=no BS) even with poor c136 and c143 capacitors => The differences between lots might not been too big
- The capacitors c136 and c143 (Sanyo CV-EX) DO NOT HAVE PROPER ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS FOR THIS PURPOSE
- The ripple-current value (or charging/discharging) of memory voltage node is much higher than specified for CV-EX -capacitors (those are NOT proper for purpose where load is charged frequently, like here)
- The exceeded (ripple) current inside capacitors heats capacitors (because of internal resistance ESR) which REDUCE THE LIFE OF CAPACITORS AND ALTER ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS LIKE ESR
- Increase of ESR means even higher temperature -> wear out process of the capacitors accelerates even more !!!!
- FEEDBACK MODIFICATION DOES NOT REMOVE THE REASON TO THIS PROCESS, BUT ONLY DELAYS THE APPEAR OF 'BLACK SCREEN' (I have measured the currect levels are still too high with the modified card)
--
I'll try to update the document soon or 'near future' with those ideas and add all new measurement/test results I have.
I have been simulated more the effect of the feedback components of the switching regulator (memory part). The capacitor labels are related again following figure.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2...mfb17hp.th.jpg
In the first simulation there are used feedback components of following cards (the values of first two have tolerances about +/- 10 nF):
1. C1=82n, C2=15n, C3=135n (Gainward 6800le version 1b)
2. C1=40n, C2=30n, C3=120n (MSI 6800le version 1, by 'money2')
3. C1=47n, C2=33n, C3=22n (Leadtek 6800le version "4 6 470 6E, by 'zxcv')
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1...imu08sr.th.jpg
It can be clearly seen that '1' has the highest gain at high frequencies i.e. faster response (=better performance against BS).
----
In the second simulation there are used feedback components of Leadtek card modified by 'zxcv' :toast: . Also I tested to alter value of C2 little bit to find out an optimal value
2. C1=100n, C2=10n, C3=100n (Leadtek 6800le version modified by 'zxcv')
2. C1=100n, C2=5n, C3=100n (Leadtek 6800le test version, more optimal?)
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3...imu11gf.th.jpg
I can be seen, that the values 'zxcv' utilized GIVE VERY GOOD PERFORMANCE :up: . I tried to play little bit with values, and find the optimization quite hard task: too many moving parts... However, I found that having C2 a little bit smaller value like 5n (=4.7n with practical components) would give even better performance. Having smaller value, say less that 1n, decreased the phase margin a lot and therefore I advice not to use so low values (can cause stability problems).
Hi againQuote:
Originally Posted by SikaRippa
Just a couple of minutes ago I did the replace capacitor
Well, the good Point is that I haven´t black screen but I can´t overclock the memory
I was try to do a black screen with doom3 hl2 far cry 3DMark03 and 3DMark05
All the programs work fine and no bs ( 385- 667) I can overclock the gpu to 400 but ussually Im working at 380 - 390
If I try to do a overclock the memory I can see artifacts on screen but no bs
I was try 3DMark03 with 385- 750 with artifacts on screen the test run fine at the midle of the firstone the test freeze for a second and then continue the test without counting frames.
Without overclock the memory at standar values (350.700) doom3 work with black points on screen in special on the front screen them you can see some times black points
On far cry the same like doom3 at this values, I can see bat geometry on screen
The estables values:
gpu 350 to 400
Memory 600- 671
the graphics card work fine but I haven´t improve the memory.
As you write on the board I have on my pcb a couple diferent ceramics capacitors (problably memory capacitors ??)
Conclusion
Iam happy about black screen but unhappy aswell about memory overclock
What do you think about ceramic capacitors??
<a href="http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=im0006863em.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1425/im0006863em.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
Good news you succeeded to mod the card :), but pity still having major problems :(Quote:
Originally Posted by jromon
--
Having artefacts etc. at low clock frequency (~700 MHz) is quite unusual. Could you answer following questions, so I can more easily analyze the problem:
- What is a 'BS-frequency' now i.e. card gives BS easily e.g. with 3dmark03/Skialpine ?
- How about before mod ?
- What drivers you have (give a try for re-install) ?
- Did you have similar artefacts before ?
- Did you checked what memories you have 2.2, 2.8 ns ... ?
- Can you seen ANY significant 'injuries' somewhere in your card, missing/burn components etc. ?
- Have you ever test 'ATITool' for artefact testing, what is result now ?
I do not believe changing ceramics would have any significant effect: the artefacts are totally different problem than BS.
Hello to the "BS" community lol.....
Here are some news of my card which I brought for RMA on the 8 of august 2005:
No news at all.... lol My reseller send it to Gainward I think, but I didn't see any graphic card within my postcards yet.... They told me that after the 30th of september, if no card is here, I would have to go to get one new or something like that.
What do you advice me to do then...... I expect to sell the retrieved card to someone I know after having checked it works well of course, cause I feel tired of this loooooooooooooooong problem.
I expect to buy a 6600GT or equivalent, should I keep the 6800LE if I have it (or a new) back? What is the most performant? What investment appears better right now, considering actual prices, the PCI EXPRESS technology etc..... ?
Thanks again, and again, and again......
Hi Godefroy !Quote:
Originally Posted by Godefroy
I hope they will keep the promise, and you will have brand new 'no-BS' card tomorrow :up: If you receive 6800le-card, please post details of card to see what kind of card they give now:
- Capacitor codes
- Number below barcode sticker
- Number at small sticker e.g GW684****
--
I am now quite sure that ALL card using the design (the same PCB) are potentially BS-affected. Some gives BS ASAP, other after few months and the rest will survive... longer. I could not say (yet) what 'longer' means, but I do not see any particular reason why ANY OF THESE CARDS COULD SURVIVE MANY YEARS. Another point of view: maybe the manufacturers are counting on, that we will not use them more that two years..
So, if you consider a new card, 6600GT can be very good candidate in that price range (ATI's out of question of course :D)