Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Random GTX 670 Question

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 23, 2012 1:16:04 PM

Im just curious, why does the pcb for the 670 vary so much?
Looking at the pics, some of them are short with what looks like 3-4 inches of the cooler continuing after the pcb ends.
In others, the pcb matches the full length of the cooler.
a c 214 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 1:20:43 PM

I was wondering the same thing.It looks to me like the reference designs are like that.Most of the aftermarket designs I've seen don't have that.But I still have no idea why they did that.
m
0
l
May 23, 2012 1:48:58 PM

yeah i don't understand it, how can a card with different lengths have the same performance? doesn't more space mean more transistors, memory etc? and for the pcbs that are shorter, why have the cooler extend to make the card the same length of those that have the longer pcbs? why nt just keep the card short? save space?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 214 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 2:00:18 PM

Yeah I have no clue.Here's what I found interesting...

This is the Galaxy reference card



Here's the aftermarket version



It looks like the end piece is just an add on.It's not even the same size as the GPU side of the PCB.
m
0
l
May 23, 2012 2:06:54 PM

Basically, variations in PCB design just allow companies to optimize the component layout. With the 670, they were able to compress all of the components into a smaller PCB. It won't have a perceivable performance advantage over a full length PCB, though. It just saves us the hassle of trying to cram 11" and 12" + length cards into our cases.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 2:09:11 PM

Even if it was the same size as the main portion of the PCB, being larger would not increase performance because all of the performance critical parts are already on the main portion of the PCB. A larger PCB could facilitate more hardware for overclocking (IE better power phases), but it's not like you could put more VRAM or an extra GPU on the larger PCB without it not being the same card anymore and except for that, nothing will change performance except for overclocking the card compared to a reference card.
m
0
l
a c 175 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 2:09:19 PM

Any chance the longer PCB is the PCB for the GTX680? The shorter one might be the GTX670.

I noticed the missing chips on the shorter one as well. Half the amount of ram?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 2:19:44 PM

4745454b said:
Any chance the longer PCB is the PCB for the GTX680? The shorter one might be the GTX670.

I noticed the missing chips on the shorter one as well. Half the amount of ram?


The chips aren't missing, the *missing* chips are on the other side of the PCB. Remember, even the GTX 670 and the GTX 680 have the same amount of VRAM by default, 2GB, spread across eight 256MB chips (32 bit width per chip times eight is 256 bit and these cards are both 256 bit). It's possible and actually likely that the longer PCB is or was based on a GTX 680 PCB and is intended for superior overclocking capability compared to a reference GTX 670.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 3:13:36 PM

I've heard that the Power phases aren't very good on the reference GTX670's .I think Nvidia was able to fit everything "needed" to make it run on the shorter version.That extra bit of plastic is all fan.It seems almost all of the aftermarket versions are full sized(normal size).
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 3:58:45 PM

Ok the answer is quite simple the short version is the refrence one from nvidia. The long one is actually the 680 card that some OEMs crammed the 670 for better power and over clocking of the 670 AKA the Gigabyte Windforce 670 has ana extra power phase 5 instead of 4 and is on full 680 board but also has the 6 and 8 pin connectors to make all that usefull..

Thent
Share
May 23, 2012 5:29:13 PM

I no longer trust Nvidia reference designs on x70 series. My 570 crapped out last week. Regulator mosfet blew. I had core voltage at 1.05. Stock is .975. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. They should have kept the other two phases on the board or perhaps mentioned it was not overclockable, at least reliably. I know of others who died at stock voltages.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 5:55:48 PM

Do you have any proof of that Thently?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 6:29:43 PM

I have this card and it is on the 680 board look at the 680 Windforce for refrence of this. I have put way to much research into this before I got my 670.

Thent
m
0
l
May 23, 2012 9:01:48 PM

Yeah the Gigabyte GTX 670 definitely uses their 680 PCB. They put a sticker with the GTX 670 model number on the PCB, which covers the model number for the GTX 680 printed on the actual board.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1038740522

Hey if you can't get 680 chips, you may as well use your over supply of PCBs and use them on the 670 eh? :p 
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 10:08:14 PM

Lol.Good for us then?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
May 23, 2012 11:10:23 PM

purple stank said:
Lol.Good for us then?


Pretty much. It leaves 670s that use 680 PCBs as superior overclockers to 670s with reference PCBs.
m
0
l
a c 175 U Graphics card
May 24, 2012 1:35:59 AM

That was my first guess and makes the most sense. It's been done before with other chips.
m
0
l
May 25, 2012 6:14:13 PM

Best answer selected by nate_09.
m
0
l
!