My EVGA 2080ti Black Edition Died after Just two days!

O

OutlawXGP

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
86
My EVGA 2080ti Black Edition artifacting and crashing with every single game today, Its been two days since I received the card. I purchased it on this of 19ths December and it arrived on the 22nd. It seemed to work fine the first two days but all the issues started this evening when I try to play some Just Cause 4. I also tested some Assassin Creed Odyssey and Battlefield 5 and the exact same thing happens. Even No Mans Sky is Artifacting.

I Have no overclock applied to it what so ever, all the settings are at default and I reinstalled the Nvidia drivers using DDU twice, as you can see from the videos above it has heavy artifacting which leads into a crash as soon the game starts.

Just Cause 4:
https://imgur.com/a/zAfc7qf

Just Cause 4 Youtube:


No Mans Sky:


Unigine valley:


Time Spy:


My spec:
Intel i9 9900k
Corsair DDR4 32GB 3200Mhz RAM
ROG MAXIMUS XI HERO Z390 Motherboard
LEADEX PLATINUM 1000W FULLY MODULAR 80 PLUS PLATINUM (I am using 2 Independent PCI-E 8 Pin power cables from different connections on the PSU also.)
SSD Samsung 970 Pro 512GB

I knew the 2080tis were having problems but I did not expect them to be this bad, Now I'm left with Intel HD graphics, This really sucks!
 
This kind of reminds me when my card went. The night before, 3 hr gaming session. The day of, just kinda went into crazy artifacts within 5 mins of gaming. At first just crashes to desktop, but with each successive attempt to run a 3d application, it just got worse and worse until no post situation. I got maybe 1-2 weird lines on the desktop but no space invaders. Had lots of "flickering" in desktop, it happened quick tbh.
 
it's kind of sad that AMD builds better VRMs and boards into $400 video cards than Nvidia does in $1200 cards.
 
Makes me wonder if the black $999 edition are "lower binned" chips, which doesn't bode well for a design flaw chip to begin with.
 
OutlawXGP said:
My EVGA 2080ti Black Edition artifacting and crashing with every single game today, Its been two days since I received the card. I purchased it on this of 19ths December and it arrived on the 22nd. It seemed to work fine the first two days but all the issues started this evening when I try to play some Just Cause 4. I also tested some Assassin Creed Odyssey and Battlefield 5 and the exact same thing happens. Even No Mans Sky is Artifacting.

I Have no overclock applied to it what so ever, all the settings are at default and I reinstalled the Nvidia drivers using DDU twice, as you can see from the videos above it has heavy artifacting which leads into a crash as soon the game starts.

Just Cause 4:
https://imgur.com/a/zAfc7qf

Just Cause 4 Youtube:


No Mans Sky:


Unigine valley:


Time Spy:


My spec:
Intel i9 9900k
Corsair DDR4 32GB 3200Mhz RAM
ROG MAXIMUS XI HERO Z390 Motherboard
LEADEX PLATINUM 1000W FULLY MODULAR 80 PLUS PLATINUM (I am using 2 Independent PCI-E 8 Pin power cables from different connections on the PSU also.)
SSD Samsung 970 Pro 512GB

I knew the 2080tis were having problems but I did not expect them to be this bad, Now I'm left with Intel HD graphics, This really sucks!
Click to expand...


I had the same problem with my first two EVGA Black 2080Ti's, the third one is flawless... so far. I never OC'ed any of them. I think it's just weeding out the "test escapes" because initial cards were likely the bottom of the barrel of binned cards. I, MIGHT, have finally gotten one that.... actually... works. As I have said in other threads, I am awaiting this card to shit the bed, however, I hope it only wets the bed ;)

Dec27 update: Got my first screen flickering today and some artifacting along with a nosedive in FPS and some stutter / choppy video... Dammit!
 
Last edited:
Third card is... Kinda stable after a BIOS update that they apparently released recently. No more screen flickering. Doing more testing tonight. I'm not sure if I'm hanging on to it at this point given how many headaches it's given me... But I might tough it out if the damn thing keeps working.
 
nVIdia really flopped on this card. I really want to get one but am VERY hesitant. I was hoping that the AIB partners released stable variants but reports like this thread are whats keeping me from wanting to do it now. I hope for the best but I am not sure these RTX cards are worth it given their current reputation for failure.
 
tangoseal said:
nVIdia really flopped on this card. I really want to get one but am VERY hesitant. I was hoping that the AIB partners released stable variants but reports like this thread are whats keeping me from wanting to do it now. I hope for the best but I am not sure these RTX cards are worth it given their current reputation for failure.
Click to expand...
I would like to believe that most of the problems are gone. If this latest BIOS update is any indication, looks like the Microcode update weeded out 99% of the problems I was having. That's not to say the boards don't have flaws, it's just saying that the BIOS on them manages to work around the issues. The card didn't flop from a business standpoint. That's the thing, this is their new flagship and it's established that people are willing to pay more for the Nvidia brand. I can't speak for anyone else, because there are plenty of people on here with good experiences. All I know is I have lost faith in this generation of processor. I have spent too much damn time chasing down possibilities to solutions for the card. Every possible configuration, a new computer, replaced damn near everything... even against my own urge not to. I knew it was the damn card the entire time, just proving it is difficult unless you do all the testing. I'm pretty exhausted of doing it to be honest. I honestly thought I had 5 RMAs in me, but EVGA is just gonna keep sending me other RMA'ed boards and I'm going just get more and more pissed.

I'm not going to buy another 2000 series board, no way in hell, after this experience. I would say there's a pretty damn good chance you won't see a problem at this point. It's beautiful when it works.

I think Nvidia succeeded, in almost every possible way. With every step teaching them how to navigate people and AIBs.

The Founders Edition Boards introduced with the 1000 series was a step to see if people would pay a premium for an entry level board with a custom Nvidia shroud, and we all did.

Their Branding program damn near had all vendors in the market only labeling Nvidia boards as gaming boards. We know what the [H] did to blow that story open, however, I think Nvidia gave up on that plan when they saw AIB partners inventing new brands so they could launch AMD's products. It didn't succeed in killing AMD. They failed here. But they learned from it.

They introduced a massively invasive NDA, that's why we don't see anything in the market about board failures. This was a big win for them.

The 2000 series has a flaw, and the NDA protects them from damn near any exposure.

The 2000 series also saw a massive price hike over the previous generation and we shell out the cash for these cards. It didn't stop me when I ordered one. It hurt my bottom line, but I still bought the card. We can expect the next generation to be just as costly if not more expensive yet again. We will pay for that card too, if there's no competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
tangoseal said:
nVIdia really flopped on this card. I really want to get one but am VERY hesitant. I was hoping that the AIB partners released stable variants but reports like this thread are whats keeping me from wanting to do it now. I hope for the best but I am not sure these RTX cards are worth it given their current reputation for failure.
Click to expand...

I space invadered one 2080 Ti FE but the replacement has been fine. I also bought an EVGA 2070 and it’s been flawless.

The FE has been used with an LG ultra wide and also an LG OLED that’s 4K. Aside from the space invaders it has been every bit as good as my 1080Ti except faster.

The 2070 has been used with an older Dell 27 via DisplayPort.

Edit: Nvidia used FedEx Priority Overnight with a brand new card for my failed item.
 
Last edited:
Some of us have had experiences with failed video cards, just like the title of this thread. So, regardless it all comes down to a personal willingness to roll the dice. Chances are the cards purchased now will work well... However, I'm no oracle for the odds of that.

If you go by what brentsg says, you should purchase your card directly from Nvidia. You know, because you're gonna get faster shipping for your replacement if/when your 2080Ti purchase shits the bed.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
If you go by what brentsg says, you should purchase your card directly from Nvidia. You know, because you're gonna get faster shipping for your replacement if/when your 2080Ti purchase shits the bed.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I merely stated what happened to me, both with my cards.. the displays that I have used them with, and with my Nvidia experience. That's all I've got.. of course can't guarantee that will be what others experience. It's just another data point. I thought it important to share, just as Kyle did when NV shipped him new product quickly.

They may stop that 6 Tuesdays from now or never, but my experience was the best RMA experience that I've had to date.
 
The fact that so many of us have had to RMA these damned video cards in the first place is troubling. Nothing about this product release inspires confidence in the product not failing.

I wish I had that image someone posted on here about these boards being branded Nvidia RMA, it just works... Lol.
 
Last edited:
Legendary Gamer said:
The fact that so many of us have had to RMA these damned video cards in the first place is troubling. Nothing about this product release inspires confidence in the product not failing.

I wish I had that image someone posted on here about these boards being branded Nvidia RMA, it just works... Lol.
Click to expand...

That's ok, I took the initiative and made a fresh one: :smuggrin:

RMA - It's On.png
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't touch a 2000 series card no matter the price for now, just way to many failures and I like to hold on to my video cards for a few years.
 
I think Turing architecture needs to be on 7nm to work correctly, having too many transistors on 12-14nm is just asking for trouble.
 
Gideon said:
I wouldn't touch a 2000 series card no matter the price for now, just way to many failures and I like to hold on to my video cards for a few years.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm stuck. I was about to send the card back but between EVGA essentially telling me I had to pay a 15%restock fee, the shipping and the fact the damn 3rd card I got from them started functioning 98-99% correctly .... I'm just going to sit on it. I know where most of the issues occur now and it's running stable (for now).

Other than the fact I have one, I agree with everything you just said ;)
 
Lastan010 said:
I think Turing architecture needs to be on 7nm to work correctly, having too many transistors on 12-14nm is just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...
If there is a flaw in early silicon, doesn't matter what process node it was fabbed on. The issues will be there at 7 or even 5nm. They will likely have it all sorted by 7 tho.
 
I just got the 2080ti Black as well and I am not impressed. I know it's a total gamble if this card is even going to work into next week and for the cost this should not be happening.

Sidenote, how are your guy's overclocks? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
 
tpatnode said:
I just got the 2080ti Black as well and I am not impressed. I know it's a total gamble if this card is even going to work into next week and for the cost this should not be happening.

Sidenote, how are your guy's overclocks? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Click to expand...
I screwed around a bit with my overclocks but I was far from aggressive. I kicked the memory up 400 MHz and the boost clock up by 180. I played with that at 100% fan speed for about 2 days. It was stable but my gains were minimal. I dropped it back down shortly afterwards.

The stock card is 25-35% faster than my old 1080Ti, that's good enough for this old man ;)
 
Legendary Gamer said:
I screwed around a bit with my overclocks but I was far from aggressive. I kicked the memory up 400 MHz and the boost clock up by 180. I played with that at 100% fan speed for about 2 days. It was stable but my gains were minimal. I dropped it back down shortly afterwards.

The stock card is 25-35% faster than my old 1080Ti, that's good enough for this old man ;)
Click to expand...

that i5 of yours is a huge bottleneck in MP games when paired with a 2080ti.
 
Lastan010 said:
that i5 of yours is a huge bottleneck in MP games when paired with a 2080ti.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the theory of what processors are actual bottlenecks in games is complete nonsense. People have been calling older quad core i5 / quad core i7 (8 thread) processors bottlenecks for some time now and there's been little evidence to suggest this. Most games are barely multi threaded. Sure, some will use more than the 6 cores I have on these processors but the difference in FPS is incredibly slim. I barely even play anything MP anymore. I won't see the performance impact anyway, I'm running a 60Hz display. So long as this processor and my 2080Ti keeps everything maxed out at 4K and 50-60FPS, I really don't care.

I use it more for it's Single thread performance with older games and my older x64 publishing programs that I don't have to screw with a cloud license (or paying MS for Publisher every 2 systems I build and load it on). It runs those apps like a hot knife through butter. I use Page Plus X9, the last iteration before they moved to a cloud based platform. It makes MS Publisher (even the latest one) look like Clown Shoes. It's optimized for Single Threaded Intel Processors, my Ryzen ran it like shit... That's the only reason why I switched back to Intel. I couldn't publish a book without constant failures and mega chop once I got past 100 pages. Runs smooth on the Intel.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the theory of what processors are actual bottlenecks in games is complete nonsense. People have been calling older quad core i5 / quad core i7 (8 thread) processors bottlenecks for some time now and there's been little evidence to suggest this. Most games are barely multi threaded. Sure, some will use more than the 6 cores I have on these processors but the difference in FPS is incredibly slim. I barely even play anything MP anymore. I won't see the performance impact anyway, I'm running a 60Hz display. So long as this processor and my 2080Ti keeps everything maxed out at 4K and 50-60FPS, I really don't care.

I use it more for it's Single thread performance with older games and my older x64 publishing programs that I don't have to screw with a cloud license (or paying MS for Publisher every 2 systems I build and load it on). It runs those apps like a hot knife through butter. I use Page Plus X9, the last iteration before they moved to a cloud based platform. It makes MS Publisher (even the latest one) look like Clown Shoes. It's optimized for Single Threaded Intel Processors, my Ryzen ran it like shit... That's the only reason why I switched back to Intel. I couldn't publish a book without constant failures and mega chop once I got past 100 pages. Runs smooth on the Intel.
Click to expand...

The bottleneck is real according to https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-9900k-processor-review,19.html but honestly it’s not a big deal. I just ordered a 2080 Ti and will be running it with a 6600K. If the CPU can get 100+ fps in 1440p at stock, I am sure it will fare much better with the over 1 GHz overclock on mine. The only ones concerned should be those playing on 240 Hz 1080p displays and demanding max fps. At 4K the GPU will be the bottleneck for quite some time.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the theory of what processors are actual bottlenecks in games is complete nonsense. People have been calling older quad core i5 / quad core i7 (8 thread) processors bottlenecks for some time now and there's been little evidence to suggest this. Most games are barely multi threaded. Sure, some will use more than the 6 cores I have on these processors but the difference in FPS is incredibly slim. I barely even play anything MP anymore. I won't see the performance impact anyway, I'm running a 60Hz display. So long as this processor and my 2080Ti keeps everything maxed out at 4K and 50-60FPS, I really don't care.

I use it more for it's Single thread performance with older games and my older x64 publishing programs that I don't have to screw with a cloud license (or paying MS for Publisher every 2 systems I build and load it on). It runs those apps like a hot knife through butter. I use Page Plus X9, the last iteration before they moved to a cloud based platform. It makes MS Publisher (even the latest one) look like Clown Shoes. It's optimized for Single Threaded Intel Processors, my Ryzen ran it like shit... That's the only reason why I switched back to Intel. I couldn't publish a book without constant failures and mega chop once I got past 100 pages. Runs smooth on the Intel.
Click to expand...

At high refresh rates, CPU bottleneck is a very real thing. And for other games, attaining 60fps is nearly impossible due to the CPU bottleneck. I game at 180hz, and my 1070 is often underutilized because my quad core is not sufficient. Games like Kerbal Space Program will be nearly impossible to maintain 60fps with larger crafts on a quad core. Fortunately, that game scales with cores nearly linearly which makes it a great example for the need for more cores. An 8700k at the same clocks as my quad core i7 gets 150% more FPS because it has 2 more cores. A 9700k gets 200% the fps at the same clocks because it has 2x more cores. Even at 4k with 8xAA, KSP is 100% CPU limited.

In R6 Siege, the game I play at 180hz, all CPU cores are fully utilized. Even a 14c28t will report near 100% CPU usage on all cores for this game. The days of single threaded bound games are nearly behind us. Sure, I still play older single threaded bound games, but nowhere near as many as I used to.
 
Last edited:
You guys realize that the human eye percieves +/- 60FPS, some are more sensitive than others... If you're trying to get crazy FPS then sure. Some processors may be better suited to your needs. I, personally, don't need it.

My 6 core 9600K at 5Ghz absolutely destroys anything I throw at it. That's not to say it's the processor for everyone. Considering I paid 242 bucks for it and the 9900k generally costs upward of 500 bucks, I'm pretty happy.

It all comes down to personal taste. Tests have shown the 4 core and 4core 8 thread processors aren't really falling too far behind in most games. Not all, but most. The Intel architecture has changed little from the Sandy Bridge design. Those older core porcessors being able to hold their own to this day .

Regardless, I have high hopes for whatever affordable AMD manages to crank out in the next two generations of Ryzen. Especially for all those out there that want a multi threaded monstrosity.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
You guys realize that the human eye percieves +/- 60FPS, some are more sensitive than others... If you're trying to get crazy FPS then sure. Some processors may be better suited to your needs. I, personally, don't need it.

My 6 core 9600K at 5Ghz absolutely destroys anything I throw at it. That's not to say it's the processor for everyone. Considering I paid 242 bucks for it and the 9900k generally costs upward of 500 bucks, I'm pretty happy.

It all comes down to personal taste. Tests have shown the 4 core and 4core 8 thread processors aren't really falling too far behind in most games. Not all, but most. The Intel architecture has changed little from the Sandy Bridge design. Those older core porcessors being able to hold their own to this day .

Regardless, I have high hopes for whatever affordable AMD manages to crank out in the next two generations of Ryzen. Especially for all those out there that want a multi threaded monstrosity.
Click to expand...

That is an old myth and I cannot fathom how people still believe the human eye cannot see above 60fps!

The difference between 60hz and 180hz is night and day. I can't stand playing a fast paced game at 60hz. It becomes really obvious when below 120fps at 180hz.

Even comparing a 180hz to a 240hz side by side is noticeable. 480hz is coming soon and I am very excited for that.
 
Shadowed said:
That is an old myth and I cannot fathom how people still believe the human eye cannot see above 60fps!

The difference between 60hz and 180hz is night and day. I can't stand playing a fast paced game at 60hz. It becomes really obvious when below 120fps at 180hz.

Even comparing a 180hz to a 240hz side by side is noticeable. 480hz is coming soon and I am very excited for that.
Click to expand...
Well I've never been a big fan of the unnatural way films, tv and games look at 120Hz+. Most TVs that display above 60hz are faking the hell out if it. It's not a real refreshrate. Dedicated gaming monitors and such, are capable of displaying higher FPS (and some tvs).

I have been able to play games at 75hz plus well back into the CRT era. Never made much of a difference to me. Never effected my kill ratio either.

I'm speaking for myself, but 60fps is enough for me. I think we're straying way off topic here...
 
Shadowed said:
That is an old myth and I cannot fathom how people still believe the human eye cannot see above 60fps!

The difference between 60hz and 180hz is night and day. I can't stand playing a fast paced game at 60hz. It becomes really obvious when below 120fps at 180hz.

Even comparing a 180hz to a 240hz side by side is noticeable. 480hz is coming soon and I am very excited for that.
Click to expand...

The human eye and our over reliance on that sense is the easiest to fool, otherwise Magicians wouldn't have been making millions all these years. Hell you been watching action movies at 24fps your whole life, what you sense is not the frame rate but the sudden change of frame rate while playing a game. I have found capping the frame rate to be far more useful then super high refresh rates. Also ditching SLI or Crossfire helps a ton with making a game feel smooth.
 
Gideon said:
The human eye and our over reliance on that sense is the easiest to fool, otherwise Magicians wouldn't have been making millions all these years. Hell you been watching action movies at 24fps your whole life, what you sense is not the frame rate but the sudden change of frame rate while playing a game. I have found capping the frame rate to be far more useful then super high refresh rates. Also ditching SLI or Crossfire helps a ton with making a game feel smooth.
Click to expand...

People often make the mistake of quoting film framerate and suggesting 24fps is enough. What this logic fails to consider is that with film, ALL the light information between each frame is collected and makes for a blur. In order to make a game appear the same, you'd need to render it at a stupidly high framerate, and then resample/merge the frames down to 24. If you could actually do that, then it might actually feel smooth. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top