GeForce RTX 3080 sees increasing reports of crashes in games

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
This is not a node issue, it is a design flaw that should have been caught but wasn't. The option of using 6 sp-caps shouldn't have been on the table. I think there should be another underlying issue that amplifies the signal sensitivity.
We aren't talking design flaw. It's not design. It's a production problem and the willingness to go forward with chips that don't meet spec.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,759
We aren't talking design flaw. It's not design. It's a production problem and the willingness to go forward with chips that don't meet spec.
They do meet spec, though? Or, then, nvidia green-lighted out of spec cards?
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
We aren't talking design flaw. It's not design. It's a production problem and the willingness to go forward with chips that don't meet spec.
I don't think you understand the difference between production and design. Since you say that is a production problem, what variable was added to cause this issue from initial materials to final assembly?
Are we hearing about contaminated materials, faulty components? Worker error? Static damage?
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
I don't think you understand the difference between production and design. Since you say that is a production problem, what variable was added to cause this issue from initial materials to finale assembly?
When you fab chips not all of them meet the specification. You don't know this?
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
They do meet spec, though? Or, then, nvidia green-lighted out of spec cards?
What i think happened is a 2fer:
1) A late push to increase clocks
2) Not enough chips that can hit those clocks at the predetermined spec for power delivery.
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
When you fab chips not all of them meet the specification. You don't know this?
6bd83b6a28b3bf7da31d10f6f4fe2e2c.jpg
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
Are we hearing about contaminated materials, faulty components? Worker error? Static damage?
Absolutely ALL of this included in the spec. You think capacitors are all new? Worker Error? You think people not machines are mass producing these boards (those are some hungry people) ? Static Damage? For most of the AIB's ??!?!??! They haven't made a video card before?
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
Absolutely ALL of this included in the spec. You think capacitors are all new? Worker Error? You think people not machines are mass producing these boards (those are some hungry people) ? Static Damage? For most of the AIB's ??!?!??! They haven't made a video card before?
I will take a ban for this because it needs to be said. You are stupid but you sure say a lot trying to make up for it.

Ok, correction your views on this issue makes me view you as such.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
I will take a ban for this because it needs to be said. You are stupid but you sure say a lot trying to make up for it.
Considering I have programmed PLC's for mass production please go and do as you wish.

You have ASUS and EVGA telling you they caught things last minute, which has not happened before. To pretend all AIB's are at fault and nVidia has none of the blame is absolutely ridiculous and is some marketing BS.
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
Considering I have programmed the PLC's for mass production please go and do as you wish.
last reply, I'm sure you are full of it because you don't even know the basics between design(the guide they must follow) and production(the work +materials used following the guide ) are.

Or you suck at your job but your boss is worse than you are not being able to spot your faults.
 
Last edited:

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
last reply, I'm sure you are full of it because you don't even know the basics between design(the guide they must follow) and production(the work +materials used following the guide ) are.
Or you suck at your in and your boss is worse than you are not being able to spot your faults.
Uh huh. Let me help you here since you can't answer specifically. Basic power delivery is contained within a UL specification template. When you design anything that needs power doesn't matter if it's a light switch or even a video card there is a spec sheet. It includes EVERYTHING that necessary to make the board work. Between the specification (usually a typed document) and the CAD drawing it includes all necessary parts, reference guidlines, routing, etc. Verfied capacitors, etc are on this document. Who provides that? Nvidia does. Can AIB choose other parts? Yes. However, the capacitors, etc in Nvidia's design ARE IN THE SPEC. Boards that adhere to the spec document and the CAD drawing is what we call reference boards. This means that as a builder there are certain assumptions that can be made. Is it wise to make assumptions without testing? NO

This is where the AIB's are at fault. They are at fault for not testing completely to verify what was in the spec. But, the basic guidelines came from nVidia. The timeline came from Nvidia. All of the AIB's publically said how much time they had from production. All said it was one month, and previous releases had two. You can't just ignore that crap and place all of the blame on AIB's. It's insanity to do so.
 
Last edited:

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
Uh huh. Let me help you here since you can't answer specifically. Basic power delivery is contained within a UL specification template. When you design anything that needs power doesn't matter if it's a light switch or even a video card there is a spec sheet. It includes EVERYTHING that necessary to make the board work. Between the specification (usually a typed document) and the CAD drawing it includes all necessary parts, reference guidlines, routing, etc. Verfied capacitors, etc are on this document. Who provides that? Nvidia does. Can AIB choose other parts? Yes. However, the capacitors, etc in Nvidia's design ARE IN THE SPEC. This means that as a builder there are certain assumptions that can be made. Is it wise to make assumptions without testing? NO

This is where the AIB's are at fault. They are at fault for not testing completely to verify what was in the spec. But, the basic guidelines came from nVidia. The timeline came from Nvidia. All of the AIB's publically said how much time they had from production. All said it was one month and previous releases had two. You can't just ignore that crap and place all of the blame on AIB's. It's insanity to do so.
See how many words and replies for you to get around to saying that my statement (design flaw) is correct. The AIB's chose the cheapest option out of what Nvidia said was acceptable(again design). Production errors would be materials out of spec from the design or itself(faulty), human error assembling and or physical damage among other things that didn't meet the initial design.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
See how many words and replies for you to get around to saying that my statement (design flaw) is correct. The AIB's chose the cheapest option out of what Nvidia said was acceptable(again design). Production errors would be materials out of spec from the design or itself(faulty), human error assembling and or physical damage among other things that didn't meet the initial design.
LOL Yeah dude. I don't really care how many likes I get. The people who are around this stuff are going to know what I'm talking about. How many likes I get? Jesus. LMAO
 

MangoSeed

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
1,420
Yes. However, the capacitors, etc in Nvidia's design ARE IN THE SPEC.

I don't think this has been confirmed by any official source but I'm inclined to believe it because EVGA built boards with the 6 cheap caps and they're not known for cutting corners.
 

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
9,578
I don't think this has been confirmed by any official source but I'm inclined to believe it because EVGA built boards with the 6 cheap caps and they're not known for cutting corners.

Bean counters sometimes overrule the engineers when it comes to margin. Shit like that happens all the time. At least EVGA put their stuff through a good QA and found the cheaper spec (if there was a cheaper spec) wasn't good.

Also, I've worked military procurement and I'm very familiar with "suitable substitutes" in gear. There's a reason why MIL-SPEC is very wary (if at all) of allowing such.

edit: let's not get too far off into the weeds about military procurement...it sucks.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
I don't think this has been confirmed by any official source but I'm inclined to believe it because EVGA built boards with the 6 cheap caps and they're not known for cutting corners.
I'm basing it off the CAD drawing that was produced. Sorry if I came off harsh. I was in a bad mood. My significant other is looking at me like i'm crazy. I just wasn't in the mood to ignore the BS.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
Somebody was talking about binning. I can't remember who it was. Is it possible that certain manufacturers got certain binned parts over others?

It’s possible but from what IgorLabshas discovered, NVIDIA FE and ASUS are immune to these crashes because of their use of mlcc
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
Don't get me wrong. This gen may be the time to buy AMD. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

Anyway, NV has had cards out for a week. Every big release lately is a CF for everyone, Intel, AMD and NV.

I know it's deemed cool around these places to hate on everyone but AMD, but they fare no better with releases.

AMD will likely match and exceed 3080 performance at 1080p/1440p but it will take the rumored hbm2 part to get near 3080/3090 at 4K. But since the majority of the market is 1440p and below that will work in their favor. The question is though with TSMC being more expensive than Samsung, can they compete with nvidia while retaining margins to please stockholders? Because if they can’t and they have to price above NVIDIA, very few people will touch Navi 2 even if it has more vram. Plus you have to consider that AMD is notoriously bad with drivers, 6+ months of black screens with 5700/XT is fresh in everyone’s minds. Finally AMD needs a DLSS 2 equivalent because the hype surrounding Cyberpunk is through the roof and if a 3080 with RT+ DLSS runs circles around Navi 2 while maintaining IQ, it will deliver a near fatal blow to AMD.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
It's literally in the article from Igor which includes the spec. He says they should have caught it. That's correct. But the people who told them they could use those parts is nVidia, which he also mentions. Nvidia engineers. The AIB's build.

Igor didnt provide a full spec sheet, not even close. So this is all conjecture. Right now the blame lies squarely on Zotac, MSI and Gigabyte.

Edit: it also seems the problem goes a bit deeper than just the voltage filters so let’s see what turns up in the next few weeks.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
Igor didnt provide a full spec sheet, not even close. So this is all conjecture. Right now the blame lies squarely on Zotac, MSI and Gigabyte.
He did include the CAD though with the part # in there. That part can't be there without engineer blessing. Builders don't have nearly the leeway as some people think.

You cannot build a reference card that is completely outside of spec unless Nvidia allows a free for all. I know they don't. If a card falls outside of specification then Nvidia will need to certify it. You can't get around that basic principle because of warranty contracts, etc.

nVidia isn't going to idemnify a damn thing if its outside of spec.

Is it possible for a builder to go ahead anyway? Yes, but that's dumb on a level i don't think people realize.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
He did include the CAD though with the part in there. That part can't be there without engineer blessing. Builders don't have nearly the leeway as some people think.

Did the CAD drawing specify configuration?
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
Igor didnt provide a full spec sheet, not even close. So this is all conjecture. Right now the blame lies squarely on Zotac, MSI and Gigabyte.
I agree with the AIB taking some blame in this but I just find it hard to believe they either didn't submit their bom to Nvidia or that Nvidia told them not to use the sp-caps and they did it anyway. Nvidia already needs to shoulder some responsibility for not giving them lead time for testing.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
I agree with the AIB taking some blame in this but I just find it hard to believe they either didn't submit their bom to Nvidia or that Nvidia told them not to use the sp-caps and they did it anyway. Nvidia already needs to shoulder some responsibility for not giving them lead time for testing.

I agree with that last part since this was a very hush hush rushed release based on what people are saying. However EVGA and ASUS caught the problem during in-house testing and remedied it before mass production while the others didn’t. So that’s why I can’t place the blame on nvidia , not yet anyway.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
Did the CAD drawing specify configuration?
No, that's where the gray area is. I would need to see nvidia's basic reference CAD drawing with the offcial spec doc from the builders. Even if I had it i couldn't share that crap. Oh hell naw. I did assume that the drawing was reference so I will put that out there to be fair.
 
Last edited:

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
I agree with that last part since this was a very hush hush rushed release based on what people are saying. However EVGA and ASUS caught the problem during in-house testing and remedied it before mass production while the others didn’t. So that’s why I can’t place the blame on not, not yet anyway.
I think EVGA and ASUS caught and remedied it because they know their name brand alone will give them a great deal on the market share of ampere products so they didn't need to be first out. The Tuf line was revamped this release with ASUS saying they were going to use one gen older strix specs for releases going forward with less rgb to save costs. A strix would have never launched with that cost cutting done to it. Wow I think they dodged a bullet because if they launched a dual or Turbo they would have been right there. EVGA does just enough to at least be mid pack build quality to high end.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
I think EVGA and ASUS caught and remedied it because they know their name brand alone will give them a great deal on the market share of pampers products so they didn't need to be first out. The Tuf line was revamped the release with ASUS saying they were going to use one gen older specs for releases going forward with less rgb to save costs. A strix would have never launched with that cost cutting done to it. Wow I think they dodged a bullet because if they launched a dual or Turbo they would have been right there. EVGA does just enough to at least be mid pack build quality to high end.
OK so this is where you're fine. There's a couple of builders that over engineer. Meaning they put in a buffer outside of the spec. ASUS damn near ALWAYS over engineers and they rarely put out reference boards. EVGA usually puts out a reference board and then several non-reference boards that basically match ASUS. That's it.

My beef is that it shouldn't have gotten to this.
 

Mylex

Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
694
OK so this is where you're fine. There's a couple of builders that over engineer. Meaning they put in a buffer outside of the spec. ASUS damn near ALWAYS over engineers and they rarely put out reference boards. EVGA usually puts out a reference board and then several non-reference boards that basically match ASUS. That's it.

My beef is that it shouldn't have gotten to this.
I get that part and its still mostly on Nvidia to me. There never should have been an option for 6 sp-caps for them to choose from unless they released with a limited boost firmware that kept it to the 1710 specs no matter what. The pressure Nvidia places in these smaller builders that only build their cards is crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
This is a good video on the subject of the capacitors. Correction to Igor capacitor identification, run down of why certain capacitors work better than others. Also that an AIB has to get their board approved by Nvidia before selling. If the case I highly doubt AIBs submitted in spec boards and then made non spec boards to sell. Plus I do believe the AIBs did not have the full drivers to fully test their cards until the last two weeks, they had limited drivers, not sure how limited and how that would affect full testing of the board. He also showed how many of the AIB boards underclock below the FE board as well, very interesting if you can endure any rambling he does.


Now if there are multiple problems besides capacitors to supply the GPU during load changes and filtering, oh boy. This does not have to be a single issue, could be multiple of issues.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,584
Also that an AIB has to get their board approved by Nvidia before selling.


Now if there are multiple problems besides capacitors to supply the GPU during load changes and filtering, oh boy. This does not have to be a single issue, could be multiple of issues.
Yup!
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,117
It’s possible but from what IgorLabshas discovered, NVIDIA FE and ASUS are immune to these crashes because of their use of mlcc
Doesn’t appear like either are immune. Hardware Unboxed has CTD issues with both their ASUS and FE cards according to their Twitter. Also have seen some reports on Reddit about CTD with those models. Might be less prone to the issue, but I wouldn’t go far as saying they’re immune.

Likewise, there are other users with the ‘cheap’ caps that are not having CTD errors. Seems like it’s too early to conclude anything yet.
 

Ricky T

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
397
Doesn’t appear like either are immune. Hardware Unboxed has CTD issues with both their ASUS and FE cards according to their Twitter. Also have seen some reports on Reddit about CTD with those models. Might be less prone to the issue, but I wouldn’t go far as saying they’re immune.

Likewise, there are other users with the ‘cheap’ caps that are not having CTD errors. Seems like it’s too early to conclude anything yet.
Hardware unboxed is the most inconsistent channel out there. Just the other day when this was being reported they were saying that they never had any crashes. And back when all the AMD driver issues were coming up they had a different story every week. First time he flat out said he had to completely reinstall drivers because of a black screen on the 5700 and he mentioned that him and others had been getting colored screens too such as pink or green. Then not long after that he said he personally had never had any issues but knew people that did. And then another freaking time he flat out said that he had never ran into issues and didn't know personally anybody else that did either.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,445
Hardware unboxed is the most inconsistent channel out there. Just the other day when this was being reported they were saying that they never had any crashes. And back when all the AMD driver issues were coming up they had a different story every week. First time he flat out said he had to completely reinstall drivers because of a black screen on the 5700 and he mentioned that him and others had been getting colored screens too such as pink or green. Then not long after that he said he personally had never had any issues but knew people that did. And then another freaking time he flat out said that he had never ran into issues and didn't know personally anybody else that did either.

Sounds like his story evolved as the AMD hush hush checks rolled in. 😂
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,809
if the reference Nvidia spec listed 5 POSCAPS and 1 MLCC capacitor then how were some board manufacturers allowed to put 6 POSCAPS?...I thought the reference spec was the minimum requirement that had to be met?
 

-Strelok-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
10,354
Sounds like his story evolved as the AMD hush hush checks rolled in. 😂
What I don’t get is why they made ZERO mention of this in their review. At this point I’ll read/watch their reviews but most of the other content I ignore since there seems to be quite a bit of bias behind it.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,117
Another update from Igor’s Lab:

“Owners of cards, which still run really stable despite six solids, owe everything to the very good chip quality. Owners of cards with MLCC, where errors still occur, may be annoyed about a GPU that does not even consistently cope with the stored voltage/frequency curve. This is exactly the point where the board partners couldn’t test anything at all with the first cards due to the lack of suitable drivers. There are certainly many cards in circulation here that would not have been suitable as OC cards.

The fact that NVIDIA has split the GPU’s power supply voltages between NVVDD and MSVDD also shows that they are well aware of the problem. I noticed that the MSVDD has much less changes and is generated independently from the NVVDD, so you should be able to get along with a well equipped MLCC group. So more MLCC does no harm if the rest of the layout allows this interpretation. Without it, however, becomes slow and sluggish.”

https://www.igorslab.de/en/nvidia-g...-so-important-and-what-are-the-object-behind/
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Another update from Igor’s Lab:

“Owners of cards, which still run really stable despite six solids, owe everything to the very good chip quality. Owners of cards with MLCC, where errors still occur, may be annoyed about a GPU that does not even consistently cope with the stored voltage/frequency curve. This is exactly the point where the board partners couldn’t test anything at all with the first cards due to the lack of suitable drivers. There are certainly many cards in circulation here that would not have been suitable as OC cards.

The fact that NVIDIA has split the GPU’s power supply voltages between NVVDD and MSVDD also shows that they are well aware of the problem. I noticed that the MSVDD has much less changes and is generated independently from the NVVDD, so you should be able to get along with a well equipped MLCC group. So more MLCC does no harm if the rest of the layout allows this interpretation. Without it, however, becomes slow and sluggish.”

https://www.igorslab.de/en/nvidia-g...-so-important-and-what-are-the-object-behind/
Looks like Nvidia holding back suitable drivers for the AIBs to test their configuration also contributed to this problem. Makes me wonder if the the original reference spec was based on a certain quality level for the GPU, which later Nvidia could not meet and was sent to the AIBs anyways. Like most failures, it is like a hangman game where many pieces have to come together to cause the failure.
  • AIBs given reference specs that in the end would poorly support the quality of the GPU's given
  • Nvidia held back applicable software (drivers) hampering AIBs from proper testing and verification
  • Nvidia allowed flawed designs to be made and sold, not overlooking or working with the AIBs effectively allowing faulty cards to be purchased
  • The BOM and the MSRP makes AIBs more likely to go with the minimum spec that Nvidia provided competing against a superior constructed and cost FE model of Nvidia's
  • The low supply of Ampere GPUs will make it hard for the AIBs to rapidly correct/replace the bad cards in the immediate future allowing for a continuation of the issue for users, responses and bad publicity for the AIBs with the worst problems
    • As in Gigabyte and Zotac are more likely considered to be the cheap or low quality cards (which frankly seems to have been the case previously) even if they correct the problem
    • Instead of replacing bad cards, firmware reducing performance may be implemented to allowed use with a performance loss
Top it off with Jensens rather misleading marketing of 1.8x efficiency improvement, performance gains and maybe even the MSRP being completely ridiculous for AIBs to make cards at that price adds to the overall dismay. Getting hype and not following through usually ends up hurting the company.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,398
I've got a bit of a predicament...

Originally, I was shooting for either an Asus TUF or an FE, but was willing to jump on just about any 3080 that was MSRP'd up to $750 before tax/shipping.

Back on the 21st, the MSI Ventus OC popped into stock at Best Buy, and I was able to complete the transaction, but then it disappeared from my order history. A hold was placed on my bank account for the full amount, and after going back and forth with BB customer support, they deemed that the order didn't exist. My guess is that I was mere seconds away from getting the "order can't be completed due to lack of stock" message, so their system acted like my order was completed, but not really. They sent my case over to their back office to investigate what happened.

This morning, I got an email from BB stating that my order was submitted. Even shows the original date of the 21st. Bank account has not been charged yet since they are waiting for my order to be product allocated.

So, what do I do?

1. Ride it out and accept the MSI, now knowing that they have the potentially inferior POSCAP (5) to MLCC (1) configuration.
2. Cancel the order and wait for supply to stabilize, hopefully over the next couple/few weeks and stick with my original plan of getting a TUF or FE.

Just looking for some advice, given this new info about the stability/crashing issues that have very recently come to light.


Screenshot_20200927-125903.png
 
Last edited:

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
9,578
I've got a bit of a predicament...

Originally, I was shooting for either an Asus TUF or an FE, but was willing to jump on just about any 3080 that was MSRP'd up to $750 before tax/shipping.

Back on the 21st, the MSI Ventus OC popped into stock at Best Buy, and I was able to complete the transaction, but then it disappeared from my order history. A hold was placed on my bank account for the full amount, and after going back and forth with BB customer support, they seemed that the order didn't exist. My guess is that I was mere seconds away from getting the "order can't be completed due to lack of stock" message, so their system acted like my order was completed, but not really. They sent my case over to their back office to investigate what happened.

This morning, I got an email from BB stating that my order was submitted. Even shows the original date of the 21st. Bank account has not been charged yet since they are waiting for my order to be product allocated.

So, what do I do?

1. Ride it out and accept the MSI, now knowing that they have the potentially inferior POSCAP (5) to MLCC (1) configuration.
2. Cancel the order and wait for supply to stabilize, hopefully over the next couple/few weeks and stick with my original plan of getting a TUF or FE.

Just looking for some advice, given this new info about the stability/crashing issues that have very recently come to light.

Why not get the card and game on it nonstop to make sure it's not having problems? It's not like you can't return it if it's messed up.
 

BassTek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
5,754
I've got a bit of a predicament...

Originally, I was shooting for either an Asus TUF or an FE, but was willing to jump on just about any 3080 that was MSRP'd up to $750 before tax/shipping.

Back on the 21st, the MSI Ventus OC popped into stock at Best Buy, and I was able to complete the transaction, but then it disappeared from my order history. A hold was placed on my bank account for the full amount, and after going back and forth with BB customer support, they deemed that the order didn't exist. My guess is that I was mere seconds away from getting the "order can't be completed due to lack of stock" message, so their system acted like my order was completed, but not really. They sent my case over to their back office to investigate what happened.

This morning, I got an email from BB stating that my order was submitted. Even shows the original date of the 21st. Bank account has not been charged yet since they are waiting for my order to be product allocated.

So, what do I do?

1. Ride it out and accept the MSI, now knowing that they have the potentially inferior POSCAP (5) to MLCC (1) configuration.
2. Cancel the order and wait for supply to stabilize, hopefully over the next couple/few weeks and stick with my original plan of getting a TUF or FE.

Just looking for some advice, given this new info about the stability/crashing issues that have very recently come to light.


View attachment 283386

I'd probably use it until you get the card that you want. It has a transferrable warranty so should be easy to flip.
 
Top