Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 29-09-20, 09:57 AM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 18,742
Gigabyte releases statement regarding SP-CAP/MLCC Capacitors on GeForce RTX 3080 GPUs

The POSCAP/SP-CAP witch hunt must end.



Read Gigabyte's statement regarding SP-CAP and MLCC Capacitors on GeForce RTX 3080/3090 Graphics Cards.

__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29-09-20, 10:21 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 7,086
Doesnt EVGA counter this arguement and state they have tested and verified this to be the cause?

I wonder if Gigabyte are defending themselves because we see what components they are using

I found this list so am curious how well it correlates to those with issues.

source from EVGA Jacob incase others want to click on the links within the table.

https://new.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comm...eb2x&context=3
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	GPU list.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	39.1 KB
ID:	12756  
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-09-20, 10:27 AM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,096
It could be the cause(Or a major aggravating factor) for EVGA and not the cause for Gigabyte, depends on the rest of their power circuitry, also depends on which type of tantalum caps they selected ofc, Gigabyte confirm here they have some pretty high end caps, and well selected for high frequency filtering
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29-09-20, 10:29 AM
m2geek m2geek is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
Doesnt EVGA counter this arguement and state they have tested and verified this to be the cause?

I wonder if Gigabyte are defending themselves because we see what components they are using

I found this list so am curious how well it correlates to those with issues.

source from EVGA Jacob incase others want to click on the links within the table.

https://new.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comm...eb2x&context=3
More like EVGA is just saying what people wanted to hear to shut them up for 5 minutes while nvidia pushed out the driver update. Stupid move tbh.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29-09-20, 10:34 AM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 18,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
Doesnt EVGA counter this arguement and state they have tested and verified this to be the cause?

I wonder if Gigabyte are defending themselves because we see what components they are using

I found this list so am curious how well it correlates to those with issues.

source from EVGA Jacob incase others want to click on the links within the table.

https://new.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comm...eb2x&context=3
It is worth noting that there are multiple ways to fix some problems. EVGA wanted to address the problem without Nvidia drivers and changed components to do that.

This isn't a matter of MLCCs are better. We do not know what caps EVGA were using, and we, therefore, cannot discuss their quality.

They changed to something better, but that doesn't mean that a fix couldn't have been implemented with better SP-CAPs. It's a very complicated issue.

I'm no expert, but the situation is not just about MLCCs vs CP-CAPs. A lot of the blame here lies with Nvidia and their early drivers.
__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29-09-20, 10:36 AM
Warchild Warchild is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norway, Oslo
Posts: 7,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by m2geek View Post
More like EVGA is just saying what people wanted to hear to shut them up for 5 minutes while nvidia pushed out the driver update. Stupid move tbh.
That is also a stupid thing to say. You think EVGA want to tarnish their own rep as imo the best Nvidia GPU cards on the market?

Of course not. Why would they admit to being "cheap". They could have easily said its not their cards its the driver, and shift blame elsewhere which is often the case for big manufacturers. Also, why would MSI and ASUS modify their next cards to be released if there wasnt a modicum of truth behind it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29-09-20, 10:40 AM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 18,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
That is also a stupid thing to say. You think EVGA want to tarnish their own rep as imo the best Nvidia GPU cards on the market?

Of course not. Why would they admit to being "cheap". They could have easily said its not their cards its the driver, and shift blame elsewhere which is often the case for big manufacturers. Also, why would MSI and ASUS modify their next cards to be released if there wasnt a modicum of truth behind it.
As far as ASUS are concerned, all of their press and retail samples used MLCC capacitors. The images used on their website were from a pre-production sample.

While some a reporting that ASUS changed their designs, they haven't. It is common for engineering samples to be used for early images, and aspects of those designs change.

ASUS is not "modifying their next cards". I can't speak for MSI though.
__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29-09-20, 10:51 AM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,096
Yeah I think the "Cheap" or "bad" thing is from people misunderstanding what is meant when some sites like Igors say "MLCC caps are better". For this context, what is traditionally considered the most important electrical characteristics for clean high frequency filtering can undoubtedly be found from using MLCC caps, but clearly some vendors believed they'd need or benefit from a much higher capacitance than usual, due to the potentially larger spikes and loads one would assume, and in this case the much larger sizes of Tantalum may have drawn some engineers to decide the higher impedance and ESR of Tantalum caps were worthwhile compromises for higher capacitance at a stable cost as long as these values still remained within NVidia's specs, so they went against "traditional wisdom" and in the mean time may have trimmed a few cents off the BOMs and made their boss happy.

Higher ESR cap groups like this in this use case essentially means your filtering is less effective, and you get noisier power outputs, that much you can take in isolation as (An oversimplified) fact. But how much noise getting through is okay? That much depends on the rest of the power circuitry, the power input, the load of each chip, ect. Can you get around the issue in other ways? Yep, the obvious one is to nudge up the voltage causing the issue so the noise becomes less significant, which I'd take a wild guess is what these drivers do, but there are many other possible approaches.

But at the end of the day, NVidia's original specifications shouldn't have produced broken boards. These vendors kept well within NVidia's claimed ESR requirements and still had issues. There's only way place blame can be allocated imo
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29-09-20, 10:54 AM
megaspeed2 megaspeed2 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 14
(Without having actually read capacitor datasheets) I'm not sure I totally buy gigabytes statement... having more capacitance doesn't necessarily make a card better because higher capacitance capacitors usually have a different graph of internal resistance or inductance vs operating frequency, even if they have a lower rated resistance or inductance that might only be true for a range of frequencies outside of where the card becomes unstable so that extra capacitance can't actually be used. This is why the MLCC recommendation exists as MLCC by nature have better high frequency characteristics.
__________________
Fractal Design Define R4, Intel i7 4790k @4.6GHz, 16GB 1600MHz, RTX2080, Rift CV1.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29-09-20, 11:38 AM
Ecob81 Ecob81 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warchild View Post
Doesnt EVGA counter this arguement and state they have tested and verified this to be the cause?

I wonder if Gigabyte are defending themselves because we see what components they are using

I found this list so am curious how well it correlates to those with issues.

source from EVGA Jacob incase others want to click on the links within the table.

https://new.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comm...eb2x&context=3
EVGA originally used 6x220uF caps. That's 1320uF compared to GB's 2820uF. The same MLCC caps are 47uF so a bank of those is 470uF. Yes having some MLCC is better to improve transient response as they react more quickly but 6x470uF is still pretty good.

Check out Debauers latest video, on the GB card he swapped 2 of them out for MLCC banks and it allowed him to get another 30MHz overclock.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.