AHO: Memory Inductors Are Frequently Burning Out on Certain NVIDIA GPUs

mercyground said:
where have we heard of this before... oh yeah solder gate... colour me unsurprised.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my thoughts exactly, and they didn't exactly own the problem last time either ditching board partners with most of the replacement costs and abandoning end users who couldn't get things covered by the board partners.


Nvidia is truly turning into Intel. The company you more or less have to buy from due to pack of good competition, but that is shady as fuck and you really don't want to buy from...
 
This seems to be all Maxwell parts.

I wonder if Pascal is affected too, but it just hasn't shown yet.

Hopefully my full cover water block keeping the GPU below 40C at all times has been enough to spare my Pascal Titan.
 
DukenukemX said:
The source which is French was updated and here's the highest offenders.

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/947-5/cartes-graphiques.html
  • 10,34% Sapphire R9 290 4G GDDR5 Tri-X OC (New Edition)
  • 9,80% Inno3D iChill GTX 980 Ti X3 Air Boss Ultra
  • 8,85% Inno3D iChill GTX 980 Ti Black Series
  • 7,59% Sapphire R9 290 4G Vapor-X
  • 6,47% Gigabyte GV-N970IXOC-4GD
  • 5,29% MSI GTX 960 2GD5T OC
So yea, Sapphire is like really bad, but so is Inno3D, which I've never heard of. But also their sample size is small. The only R9 290 they show is from Sapphire, which the GTX 980Ti has Inno3D, EVGA, MSI, and Asus. Asus has like 0% failure rates, which either means that Asus has some amazing quality or that the sample size was too small.

The only real conclusion you can get from this is stay away from Sapphire and Inno3D when it comes to buying a R9 290 and GTX 980 Ti. There's not enough data here to show that AMD or Nvidia has a higher failure rate. Cause again, I'm sure other's have made a R9 290 besides Sapphire. If I limited the sample size to just Inno3D for the 980Ti, you would say that Nvidia has a higher failure rate.
Click to expand...

Remember that data was made when mining was exclusively AMD.
 
I have a 680 and 780 still in limited use operation. My 780 was run in my main rig for almost 7 years 24/7 before going 1080 and eventually 1080ti.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'll have you know the last 5 AMD cards I bought have died on me, but my Nvidia GTX Awesome is still running just fine. This is clearly AMD making false claims on Nvidia.

[sarcasm]Yes, I'm joking. If I don't do this, someone here will think I'm an Nvidia fanboy. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
Duke, I'm still playing your games on my 10-yo Asus HD4870. I even popped the heatsink off the GPU, and the TIM looked like the day it was applied.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I want to use AMD, but they are so far behind in the GPU race it is pathetic. That is why Nvidia can get away with all their shit.

When Navi comes out it better have a 1080ti +20% performance part.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say AMD is far behind. The 1080 Ti is faster in majority of games compared to the Vega 64, but then again that's a dumb downed Titan. Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080. I would say the price of the 1080 Ti is too high for most people, but with crypto mining the AMD cards are through the roof in price.

People won't be satisfied unless AMD has the fastest most expensive card to offer even though the RX 580 is faster in majority of games compared to the 1060. Also, apparently the Vega 64 is faster in Linux for some reason.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10-ubuntu-gpufresh&num=2
 
DukenukemX said:
I wouldn't say AMD is far behind. The 1080 Ti is faster in majority of games compared to the Vega 64, but then again that's a dumb downed Titan. Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080. I would say the price of the 1080 Ti is too high for most people, but with crypto mining the AMD cards are through the roof in price.

People won't be satisfied unless AMD has the fastest most expensive card to offer even though the RX 580 is faster in majority of games compared to the 1060. Also, apparently the Vega 64 is faster in Linux for some reason.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10-ubuntu-gpufresh&num=2
Click to expand...

If they fixed VR I'd consider them.

I used to put AMD into relative's rigs but they've shown interest in VR so I don't do that anymore.
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
If they fixed VR I'd consider them.

I used to put AMD into relative's rigs but they've shown interest in VR so I don't do that anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't use my VR headset, but i still believe its the future and its my most important metric. About any video card can play overwatch fluently. I have two RX 560 2gb that do everything i need just fine... except VR. I couldnt even get an RX580 or Fury X to run project cars fluently in VR
 
buttons said:
I don't use my VR headset, but i still believe its the future and its my most important metric. About any video card can play overwatch fluently. I have two RX 560 2gb that do everything i need just fine... except VR. I couldnt even get an RX580 or Fury X to run project cars fluently in VR
Click to expand...
Project Cars is a game that really favors Nvidia, and is a Gameworks title. Though I would look into using DXVK to run DX11 titles through Vulkan, which we all know AMD favors the Vulkan API... except in Linux. Apparently their Linux Vulkan driver is so bad that the community made their own called RADV. But anyway, DXVK maybe the secret weapon AMD needs to get around DX11 Gamework titles that run slow.
 
DukenukemX said:
Project Cars is a game that really favors Nvidia, and is a Gameworks title. Though I would look into using DXVK to run DX11 titles through Vulkan, which we all know AMD favors the Vulkan API... except in Linux. Apparently their Linux Vulkan driver is so bad that the community made their own called RADV. But anyway, DXVK maybe the secret weapon AMD needs to get around DX11 Gamework titles that run slow.
Click to expand...

AMD gets mauled across the board in VR. Has nothing to do with Gameworks (in most cases).
 
DukenukemX said:
I wouldn't say AMD is far behind. The 1080 Ti is faster in majority of games compared to the Vega 64, but then again that's a dumb downed Titan. Vega 64 was meant to compete with the 1080. I would say the price of the 1080 Ti is too high for most people, but with crypto mining the AMD cards are through the roof in price.

People won't be satisfied unless AMD has the fastest most expensive card to offer even though the RX 580 is faster in majority of games compared to the 1060. Also, apparently the Vega 64 is faster in Linux for some reason.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10-ubuntu-gpufresh&num=2
Click to expand...


My thought process is as follows.

I have a 4k screen

I demand 4k ultra settings in every title, on aasingle GPU, where minimum framerates never drop below 60fps.

Nvidia is about 80% of the way there.

AMD is nowhere close.
 
Dayaks said:
AMD gets mauled across the board in VR. Has nothing to do with Gameworks (in most cases).
Click to expand...
Yes but Project Cars is like getting double fucked for AMD. Also as far as I know no game uses Vulkan or Dx12 for VR. Talos Principle and Doom VFR maybe?

Zarathustra[H] said:
My thought process is as follows.

I have a 4k screen

I demand 4k ultra settings in every title, on aasingle GPU, where minimum framerates never drop below 60fps.

Nvidia is about 80% of the way there.

AMD is nowhere close.
Click to expand...

Yes but people who buys graphic cards that expensive are not the majority. The most popular graphics card on Steam is... a 960 and 750 Ti. A GTX 1060 is #3. A 1050 Ti is #4. A 1080 is like less than a percent. A 1080 Ti is even less then that. AMD cards hardly exist probably due to everyone using them to do cryptomining.

Point is 4k is the 1%. Probably less than that. Majority of people own a mid range or lesser graphics card. It's 1080P or 1440p at best. Yea Nvidia is like 80% there, but it hardly matters when an overwhelming amount of people are using $100 to $250 graphic cards. That's before crypto mining fuckery. In that range of pricing, AMD is doing very well against Nvidia. Hell the Vega 56 wasn't a bad deal until the crypto-nightmare.
 
DukenukemX said:
Yes but Project Cars is like getting double fucked for AMD. Also as far as I know no game uses Vulkan or Dx12 for VR. Talos Principle and Doom VFR maybe?



Yes but people who buys graphic cards that expensive are not the majority. The most popular graphics card on Steam is... a 960 and 750 Ti. A GTX 1060 is #3. A 1050 Ti is #4. A 1080 is like less than a percent. A 1080 Ti is even less then that. AMD cards hardly exist probably due to everyone using them to do cryptomining.

Point is 4k is the 1%. Probably less than that. Majority of people own a mid range or lesser graphics card. It's 1080P or 1440p at best. Yea Nvidia is like 80% there, but it hardly matters when an overwhelming amount of people are using $100 to $250 graphic cards. That's before crypto mining fuckery. In that range of pricing, AMD is doing very well against Nvidia. Hell the Vega 56 wasn't a bad deal until the crypto-nightmare.
Click to expand...

If you look back at my original comment you replied to, I don't think I suggested that AMD is a no go for everyone.

I said that I want to buy AMD, but I can't because their top end parts are far behind.

I agree that AMD parts can do well in lower resolution systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top