so it looks like Asus went full MLCC caps on both 3080s TUF and Strix (watch 4:20min) Good for them!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mate, you do realize there is usually only one 12v rail inside a PSU?
The homegrown geek in taco just couldn't resist, mate
Well, if it is truly multiple rail, that might in theory pose a problem if there are slight fluctuations in output and they both feed the same circuit on the GPU. But if nothing exploded, probably gravy, mate.
I'm biting a finger and it doesn't even feel like my finger. Feel like taco gona womit.
Egh g'night mates.
Jay had a good video on this, companies using the cheaper components causing the crashes.
Most of the reason for canceling the Ventus was because the small sampling of "reviews" i have seen show it running hotter than i would like. I didn't cancel anything over the crashing issue specifically.
so it looks like Asus went full MLCC caps on both 3080s TUF and Strix (watch 4:20min) Good for them!
At the moment there is no clear indication that is the route they’re going to take. Jayz only suggests that is a likely possibility since it’s simple and free.so AIB's are not going to re-manufacture the cards and instead will just release BIOS updates that reduce clocks?...sounds like a bad option...so Asus and Founders Edition cards seem like the best choice
The AIB's are NOT responsible for this. Well not completely. All parts on that board are apart of the spec. If a cheaper component is guarunteed to fail then it shouldn't be apart of the spec. This is basic engineering.If they do that they are signing their death warrants. The AIBs are responsible for this. They could have charged $10 more for each card with the proper hardware and all would be well. I don't understand why they are trying to take such shortcuts. They know NV cards are money makers so why bring discredit on your company by trying to make an extra couple of dollars?
Is taco missing something here? Didn't evga catch them trouble and .fixed in time?
The AIB's are NOT responsible for this. Well not completely. All parts on that board are apart of the spec. If a cheaper component is guarunteed to fail then it shouldn't be apart of the spec. This is basic engineering.
The lesser parts ARE apart of the spec. That's why NV is at fault.If NV said they could substitute with lesser parts then NV is at fault. If the AIBs substituted to save money they are at fault.
The lesser parts ARE apart of the spec. That's why NV is at fault.
When you engineer a product you provide what's called a spec list. It includes every part and what is acceptable to use for guarunteed operation. This may include cheaper parts. You provide this spec list precisely to prevent failures. You are providing parts that meet the specification for operation.
When you begin manufacturing you have to monitor and test for weeks to guaruntee everything is operating within tolerance. If you don't, well it looks alot like this. AIB's generally speaking would have caught this. But within only 1 month. That's crazy tight. There's no allowance for a mistake. So do AIB's share some blame? Yes. But not the majority. Far from it.
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.Please show me the spec sheets. If they show the configuration and parts used then I'll buy your story. Otherwise this is pure conjecture.
That kind of warning would be in the spec usually. It would be if you wanted to prevent failures. All of the cards are different because Nvidia didn't specifiy.I thought 5 cheap ones and 1 spensive one was reference design, not 6 cheap ones.. those are the ones with problems I think.
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.
There is enough blame to go around but the point is you wouldn't even have been able to identify what a lesser component was if it wasn't in Nvidia's spec. So putting that all on AIBs? Oh hell no.I read it again and NV has some blame because they didn't exclude lesser components, but the AIBs in question knowingly used lesser components for nothing other than cost reasons. Here's the money shot...
Sometimes things are so obvious that you really have to look several times to see them. But once you have understood it, many things suddenly go from nebulous to plausible. NVIDIA, by the way, cannot be blamed directly, because the fact that MLCCs work better than POSCAPs is something that any board designer who hasn’t taken the wrong profession knows. Such a thing can even be simulated if necessary.
Anyway, there's enough blame to go around. At least it was found quickly and will be remedied.
There is enough blame to go around but the point is you wouldn't even have been able to identify what a lesser component was if it wasn't in Nvidia's spec. So putting that all on AIBs? Oh hell no.
No its not all on the caps. This isn't hard to identify the problem. With only 1 month of production there's only a certain amount of chips that meet nVidia's design spec. The 3080 and the 3090 ARE Titan cards given their size. NVidia went all in on a lesser design node because they had to. AMD is on a better process. To mitigate that Nvidia is running with a much larger chip than they wanted which would not be a problem if they had production of more than 1 month. 1 month of production for Nvidia before launch is 100% ABSURD! They are like the Intel of GPU design.
No its not all on the caps. This isn't hard to identify the problem. With only 1 month of production there's only a certain amount of chips that meet nVidia's design spec. The 3080 and the 3080 ARE Titan cards given their size. NVidia went all in on a lesser design node because they had to. AMD is on a better process. To mitigate that Nvidia is running with a much larger chip than they wanted which would not be a problem if they had production of more than 1 month. 1 month of production for Nvidia before launch is 100% ABSURD! They are like the Intel of GPU design.
Not my inner AMD. I just don't like BS. I have done software design and engineering so when someone blames the builders but the spec has the inferior part IN IT. That's a problem.Dude, chill. Your inner AMD isn't hard to discern.
Dont' believe me? Here's a write up I did from 2105 on this very site. Check the hardware. I go where the performance is.Dude, chill. Your inner AMD isn't hard to discern.
I find it hard to believe that EVGA (explicitly stating) and ASUS (no statement but caps changed) discovered issues with the caps prior to launch---so close they even had images released showing the older cap config---but that Hardware Unboxed is to believed that it wasn't the issue. Like, come on now. There are likely other issues related to crashes apart from the ones identified with hardware by the manufacturers.
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.No its not all on the caps. This isn't hard to identify the problem. With only 1 month of production there's only a certain amount of chips that meet nVidia's design spec. The 3080 and the 3080 ARE Titan cards given their size. NVidia went all in on a lesser design node because they had to. AMD is on a better process. To mitigate that Nvidia is running with a much larger chip than they wanted which would not be a problem if they had production of more than 1 month. 1 month of production for Nvidia before launch is 100% ABSURD! They are like the Intel of GPU design.
So some chips use more power than others. Bingo Bango that's why you have a variety of cards failing. Blaming it "on drivers" shouldn't be uttered EVER when it comes to nVdia by ANY reviewer given the crap they have spewed.
Exactly. If people are catching crap last minute then it's NOT the AIB's. Nvidia is their biggest selling customer. People really think they would screw their entire launch for 0.15? You're crazy.I find it hard to believe that EVGA (explicitly stating) and ASUS (no statement but caps changed) discovered issues with the caps prior to launch---so close they even had images released showing the older cap config---but that Hardware Unboxed is to believed that it wasn't the issue. Like, come on now. There are likely other issues related to crashes apart from the ones identified with hardware by the manufacturers.
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.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.
They do meet spec, though? Or, then, nvidia green-lighted out of spec cards?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?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.
When you fab chips not all of them meet the specification. You don't know this?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?
What i think happened is a 2fer:They do meet spec, though? Or, then, nvidia green-lighted out of spec cards?
When you fab chips not all of them meet the specification. You don't know this?