GTX 590 reviews

[tajoh111]

I think this is the time for the comeback of a dual PCB card, using bigger and/or longer PCB & heatsink, stronger fan, and much beefier VRM design. nVidia needs to swallow their ego, the chip has such potential, hampering it with such puny design as GTX 590 can be called PC enthusiast crime.

I think better engineering on the boards in general is needed.

Lets look at the gtx 580. Nice card and a decent PCB. Now lets look at what MSI has done in the form of the lighting. They clock the card so that it is 5-7 percent faster and reduce power consumption by 6.6 percent while doing it according to tech powerup. If this type of energy profile was applied to the gtx 590 using the lightnings gtx 580 PCB as a basis, we could probably have a card that clocks very similarly to the gtx 580 at stock clocks rather than this disaster of a card. Sure it might need an aggressive power control in stuff like furmark, but in games we would have a much better card than its current form.

I think NV should give up on the shroud design and give the card a beefier cooler. Power consumption is so bad on this card because temps are too high.

Nv just got so lazy with this dual gpu card. I think they assumed AMD was going to clock the 6990 lower than the 5970 because of the higher power consumption of cayman compared to cypress. So when this turned out not to be the cause, they overspec'ed their card to compete and the rest of the story writes itself.

[Lanek]

When we have see Evga annonce a dual 460 ( 460 win ) 1 week before the GTX590 release, we should have take care. this card who come from nowhere at a moment we are waiting the 590.... look like Evga have wanted ensure his sell..

Now the GTX590 is the official, we will maybe get some surprise from AIB..

[Sherman Tank]

I think better engineering on the boards in general is needed.

Lets look at the gtx 580. Nice card and a decent PCB. Now lets look at what MSI has done in the form of the lighting. They clock the card so that it is 5-7 percent faster and reduce power consumption by 6.6 percent while doing it according to tech powerup. If this type of energy profile was applied to the gtx 590 using the lightnings gtx 580 PCB as a basis, we could probably have a card that clocks very similarly to the gtx 580 at stock clocks rather than this disaster of a card. Sure it might need an aggressive power control in stuff like furmark, but in games we would have a much better card than its current form.

I think NV should give up on the shroud design and give the card a beefier cooler. Power consumption is so bad on this card because temps are too high.

Nv just got so lazy with this dual gpu card. I think they assumed AMD was going to clock the 6990 lower than the 5970 because of the higher power consumption of cayman compared to cypress. So when this turned out not to be the cause, they overspec'ed their card to compete and the rest of the story writes itself.

Makes perfect sense, but at least this EPICFAIL is innovative!

[bamtan2]

I think this is the time for the comeback of a dual PCB card, using bigger and/or longer PCB & heatsink, stronger fan, and much beefier VRM design. nVidia needs to swallow their ego, the chip has such potential, hampering it with such puny design as GTX 590 can be called PC enthusiast crime.

you are wrong. using an extra board would not help at all. the card is still constrained to the same volume, which means the same fan, which means the same heatsinks, which means the same power.

[JohnZS]

what i dont think you're taking into consideration is the reliability of this card.
So the big fuss is the cards are dying with adding voltage or overclocks, however this shouldn't be the case period.
When any one manufacturers a working part, they over engineer it for multiple reasons, one being reliability. This extra engineering allows for us to overclock things, maybe produce more horsepower on stock internals things of this nature. When you make something and its already at the limits, then reliability is obviously sacrificed to do so. This makes me question how long will this card honestly last, even at stock frequencies. Will it make it a year? 2 or 3?. Most people keep their high end cards for at least a year more likely 2 or 3. If this card can't last a few days with an overclock or voltage increase wouldn't you think that MAYBE it might not make it as long as you would like. Thats my biggest issue with the card and is a reason they need a revision imo or to STOP making dual gpu cards with such power hungry gpu's. Wait til 28nm or whatever is next where the possibility is more likely.

Oh yes absolutely I agree that there is cause for concern with regards to the longevity of a GTX 590's lifespan.
It is a shame nVidia did not use a higher quality VRM, especially considering the power going through this flagship card!

Even more surprising is that they allow voltage adjustments. Why not put the same Voltage controller as on the 295 SINGLE PCB where you cannot alter the voltage?

(That way nVidia would have avoided many reviewers exposing the Achilles heal)?

John

[Sherman Tank]

you are wrong. using an extra board would not help at all. the card is still constrained to the same volume, which means the same fan, which means the same heatsinks, which means the same power.

Except the card is not restrained by heat or power, and thus simply needs more/better power circuitry, and if it won't fit on the PCB, then just add an extra inch to the PCB.

[Sherman Tank]

Oh yes absolutely I agree that there is cause for concern with regards to the longevity of a GTX 590's lifespan.
It is a shame nVidia did not use a higher quality VRM, especially considering the power going through this flagship card!

Even more surprising is that they allow voltage adjustments. Why not put the same Voltage controller as on the 295 SINGLE PCB where you cannot alter the voltage?

(That way nVidia would have avoided many reviewers exposing the Achilles heal)?

John

Probably because they thought the card was going up against a heavily down clocked 6990 as Tajoh111 suggested so probably designed the 590 to run at lower clocks like 500-550mhz for example, but when 6990 hit, it was too late for any major re-designs (or testing it seems), so Nvidia may have just upped the clocks/volts to the limit, but when cards began blowing up they had no choice but to release a new bios locking out any volt adjustments.

[spursindonesia]

you are wrong. using an extra board would not help at all. the card is still constrained to the same volume, which means the same fan, which means the same heatsinks, which means the same power.

I might be wrong, not claiming as an expert in this issue, but AFAIK, the card problem lies on the weak & insufficient VRM design and/or number, making it dual PCB will certainly provide more estate area for bigger and more extensive VRM design. Better designed, stronger VRM will yield lower power consumption, lowering the temperature overall, thus helping the TDP characteristic of the card itself.

And i'm certainly not only suggesting in using dual PCB, but also extending the length of the card ala HD 6990, that will certainly add some volume to ease your concern. Bottomline, nVidia has the bigger, more power hungry chip in this generation, how on earth they try to fight the physic by forcing a smaller PCB, weak a$$ VRM, and silence at all cost philosophy upon this card ???

[bamtan2]

Except the card is not restrained by heat or power, and thus simply needs more/better power circuitry, and if it won't fit on the PCB, then just add an extra inch to the PCB.

you are wrong too. the primary constraint here is heat and power. my how quickly people forget what fermi is. its a pig.

your problem is you think the power circuitry is limited. it's not. gtx 590 is the most power consuming pci card ever sold, even BEFORE you overclock it and make it explode.

[JohnZS]

you are wrong too. the primary constraint here is heat and power. my how quickly people forget what fermi is. its a pig.

your problem is you think the power circuitry is limited. it's not. gtx 590 is the most power consuming pci card ever sold, even BEFORE you overclock it and make it explode.

Somebody once said you could put lipstick on a pig

Anyway the Fermi in it's 500 series guise is not that bad I just think in hindsight nVidia chose a cost effective VRM solution as opposed to a high quality and rather expensive one.

Would it have also been easier for nVidia to have put 2 570's on one GPU as opposed to 2 580's?

Even 2 2GB 560's clocked well would be a very good dual GPU solution.

Like some people have suggested in this thread, perhaps nVidia were surprised by how aggresive ATi were with the 6990 and had to raise clocks from 575 or 550Mhz at the last minute. (or even unlock pipes? from 480 to 512?)

John

[scottsche]

Like some people have suggested in this thread, perhaps nVidia were surprised by how aggresive ATi were with the 6990 and had to raise clocks from 575 or 550Mhz at the last minute. (or even unlock pipes? from 480 to 512?)

Very early on the card was said to have 1024 SPs (november 2010 I think). The 600mhz core clock also leaked out before the 6990 was released.

[Aten-Ra]

I might be wrong, not claiming as an expert in this issue, but AFAIK, the card problem lies on the weak & insufficient VRM design and/or number, making it dual PCB will certainly provide more estate area for bigger and more extensive VRM design. Better designed, stronger VRM will yield lower power consumption, lowering the temperature overall, thus helping the TDP characteristic of the card itself.

And i'm certainly not only suggesting in using dual PCB, but also extending the length of the card ala HD 6990, that will certainly add some volume to ease your concern. Bottomline, nVidia has the bigger, more power hungry chip in this generation, how on earth they try to fight the physic by forcing a smaller PCB, weak a$$ VRM, and silence at all cost philosophy upon this card ???

Can you explain why the VRM design is weak and insufficient for default settings ??

[bamtan2]

I just think in hindsight nVidia chose a cost effective VRM solution as opposed to a high quality and rather expensive one.

Would it have also been easier for nVidia to have put 2 570's on one GPU as opposed to 2 580's?

Even 2 2GB 560's clocked well would be a very good dual GPU solution.

1. gtx 590 pulls like 450 watts under load. 2x more than normal cards. even more than 6990, which is already more than any card ever. overclocked and not exploding it pulls more than 500 watts. the stock gtx 590 is unprecedented. still think nvidia didn't choose a high quality solution?

2. 2x 570 would be even less power efficient than the gtx 590 is now, meaning it would be even worse.

3. 2x 560, even if more efficient and higher clocked, would still be worse than gtx 590.

[kuroikenshi]

1. gtx 590 pulls like 450 watts under load. 2x more than normal cards. even more than 6990, which is already more than any card ever. overclocked and not exploding it pulls more than 500 watts. the stock gtx 590 is unprecedented. still think nvidia didn't choose a high quality solution?

2. 2x 570 would be even less power efficient than the gtx 590 is now, meaning it would be even worse.

3. 2x 560, even if more efficient and higher clocked, would still be worse than gtx 590.

4. cards failing on consumers' hands is worse than any performance/efficiency issues brought up by you

[Sherman Tank]

you are wrong too. the primary constraint here is heat and power. my how quickly people forget what fermi is. its a pig.

your problem is you think the power circuitry is limited. it's not. gtx 590 is the most power consuming pci card ever sold, even BEFORE you overclock it and make it explode.

No mate your wrong, the 590 cores run plenty cool in games so there is room to up the clocks/volts considerably before you begin to hit a thermal wall.

As for power, well there isn't really a wall as long as you can dissipate the heat. I remember when people used to crow about 300w being the limit...

If the power circuitry within the 590 was more robust, people would be running their 590's well past 580 clocks, and be raving about 'having the fasted card in the world', sure it would probably run loud, but it could do it with ease, if Nvidia didn't skimp on parts...

[[XC] hipno650]

1. gtx 590 pulls like 450 watts under load. 2x more than normal cards. even more than 6990, which is already more than any card ever. overclocked and not exploding it pulls more than 500 watts. the stock gtx 590 is unprecedented. still think nvidia didn't choose a high quality solution?

2. 2x 570 would be even less power efficient than the gtx 590 is now, meaning it would be even worse.

3. 2x 560, even if more efficient and higher clocked, would still be worse than gtx 590.

sorry man but I have not seen the same numbers you have.....

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-21.html

looks like around the same consumption as the 6990 with out flipping the BIOS switch....

not to mention lower temps....

[spursindonesia]

Can you explain why the VRM design is weak and insufficient for default settings ??

Was i saying it wasn't sufficient for default setting ? But i guess this forum isn't called "defaultsystems" for nothing, right ?

It MIGHT be enough, it might not, we still can't really tell the long term repercussions of this issue. But as far as i can observe, the chip itself is quite resilient, but the VRM that was blowing all over the place. You can debate the severity if this "incidents", how widespread etc, but the issue is there, raised by legitimate sources around the web, and even nVidia did make some actions to remedy the alleged problem.

For a highend, high tag price card, that was supposed to be targeted for enthusiast, the design of this card is simply underwhelming for my taste. The graphic chip used is plenty promising, the card design simply don't deliver that promise, for enthusiast aka OCing user out there. When OCing is your trump card, OCing is good (remember Bart launch that was challanged officially by an OFFICIALLY preOCed cards), but when OCing is blowing your card, OCing is the work of the devil, eh ??

[cegras]

No mate your wrong, the 590 cores run plenty cool in games so there is room to up the clocks/volts considerably before you begin to hit a thermal wall.

As for power, well there isn't really a wall as long as you can dissipate the heat. I remember when people used to crow about 300w being the limit...

If the power circuitry within the 590 was more robust, people would be running their 590's well past 580 clocks, and be raving about 'having the fasted card in the world', sure it would probably run loud, but it could do it with ease, if Nvidia didn't skimp on parts...

Arg, no, the limit is how much power your VRM can put out before toasting itself, which is limited by board space. In this case the VRM is barely doing the job.

[STEvil]

Arg, no, the limit is how much power your VRM can put out before toasting itself, which is limited by board space. In this case the VRM is barely doing the job.

you just agreed with him

[JohnZS]

No mate your wrong, the 590 cores run plenty cool in games so there is room to up the clocks/volts considerably before you begin to hit a thermal wall.

As for power, well there isn't really a wall as long as you can dissipate the heat. I remember when people used to crow about 300w being the limit...

If the power circuitry within the 590 was more robust, people would be running their 590's well past 580 clocks, and be raving about 'having the fasted card in the world', sure it would probably run loud, but it could do it with ease, if Nvidia didn't skimp on parts...

Exactly
The 590 is not limited by Core temperature (unless you happen to have a REALLY REALLY badly ventilated case, in which case any GPU would be toasty).
The only way you could argue that temperature is a limiting factor is..... the temperature of the VRM
I cannot remember exactly which site did this test, but someone used an IR Thermal gun and pointed it at the 590 to find it's hot spots.
When the core was happy at 70C in games the VRM (@stock) was nearly 100C!

1. gtx 590 pulls like 450 watts under load. 2x more than normal cards. even more than 6990, which is already more than any card ever. overclocked and not exploding it pulls more than 500 watts. the stock gtx 590 is unprecedented. still think nvidia didn't choose a high quality solution?

2. 2x 570 would be even less power efficient than the gtx 590 is now, meaning it would be even worse.

3. 2x 560, even if more efficient and higher clocked, would still be worse than gtx 590.

Bamtan2
You are right in the sense that the 590 is certainly an engineering marvel as it pulls less power than 2x 580 cores. HOWEVER it goes without saying that there is a limiting factor in the design here that is an Achilles heal for the graphics card.

I might be wrong (probably am), but seeing the VRM that nVidia chose to use, I cannot help, but think this was either a cost cutting measure, or they wished to have a short card.

I feel that what frustrates a lot of Xtremesystems' members is that the GTX 590 is so close, yet also so far from perfection.

You could strap an EK block on it to keep it very cool, but you are limited by what speed you can achieve out of the card due to it's, cost effective VRM design.

IF nVidia had cut a few pipes/cores Overclockers might have had a bit more joy out of the card, however performance would be less compared to 6990.

I believe that nVidia either overlooked the situation, or had to make a relatively last minute change as there does seem to be hardly any limit or room for tweaking. (I heard somewhere that the latest drivers lower and lock the voltage to 0.91xxV)

As someone quite rightly (InCredible I believe) said earlier in this topic, it does raise questions over the longterm reliability of this card.

John

[Sherman Tank]

Arg, no, the limit is how much power your VRM can put out before toasting itself, which is limited by board space. In this case the VRM is barely doing the job.

See my earlier post below.

Except the card is not restrained by heat or power, and thus simply needs more/better power circuitry, and if it won't fit on the PCB, then just add an extra inch to the PCB.

[Sherman Tank]

Perhaps Nvidia could have simply used a more expensive Volterra solution instead, and still made a short card?

[Aten-Ra]

Was i saying it wasn't sufficient for default setting ? But i guess this forum isn't called "defaultsystems" for nothing, right ?

It MIGHT be enough, it might not, we still can't really tell the long term repercussions of this issue. But as far as i can observe, the chip itself is quite resilient, but the VRM that was blowing all over the place. You can debate the severity if this "incidents", how widespread etc, but the issue is there, raised by legitimate sources around the web, and even nVidia did make some actions to remedy the alleged problem.

For a highend, high tag price card, that was supposed to be targeted for enthusiast, the design of this card is simply underwhelming for my taste. The graphic chip used is plenty promising, the card design simply don't deliver that promise, for enthusiast aka OCing user out there. When OCing is your trump card, OCing is good (remember Bart launch that was challanged officially by an OFFICIALLY preOCed cards), but when OCing is blowing your card, OCing is the work of the devil, eh ??

first, you haven't answered my question. Why the VRM design is weak and insufficient ??

Secondly, the only VRM that faild was in W1zzards GTX590 review. All the other GTX590 photos doesnt show a VRM fail.

Thirdly, enthusiasts are not only people who OC/OV.

Fourth and the best part, the GTX590 can OC/OV.

[H] GTX590 @ 723MHz with 0.963V AIR (default cooling)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...ing_followup/2

LAB501 GTX590 OC up to 900MHz AIR (Aftermarket cooling)
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/nvidia-...overclocking/7

And because we are at xtremesystems have a look at this

http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1163

[Buckeye]

LAB501 GTX590 OC up to 900MHz AIR (Aftermarket cooling)
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/nvidia-...overclocking/7[/IMG]

I love your aftermarket cooling
Not very usable but it does show that with better cooling they can/do overclock very well.

[Sherman Tank]

Fourth and the best part, the GTX590 can OC/OV.

Fifth and the worst part, latest driver prevent OV, and worse still, the OCP kills performance once over 700-750mhz with 683mhz being in the ideal range.

So imo this card is still epicfail, but the GTX 595 could easily be a winner, should it ever be released...