ipkha
That flames one is a one off as best we can tell right now. Some bad component not relayed to the heat issue.
Both bios files increase fan speed and eliminate zero fan at low temps. Slave bios already had no zero fan speed and higher voltage limit.

I have tested the secondary 1070 FTW BIOS and it reduced the fan speed from idling at 1,000 RPM to idling at 500 RPM. 
 
It also appears to reduce the fan speeds slightly at load (tested to around 60 - 65 C). Another user who posted above noticed the same thing with the new secondary 1070 FTW BIOS.
 
I have reverted to the previous secondary BIOS and am trying to find more information about whether this was what EVGA intended. 
 
Has anybody else tested this?

gara024
First of all IF evga didn't actually care they wouldn't be offering multiple fixes to a problem that is being so blown up by people. Do you know hot the vrams actually have to get before they fail? They provided a bios update + are giving free thermal pads to those who feel they are needed. If you actually look they say they are optional. Evga has said it was an oversight and the ceo pretty much said it was our bad. If you don't like you evga that's fine no one is forcing you to use there products.

I never said EVGA didn't care about their customers. I have bought their products for 15 years now. I am simply stating what happened and how I personally handled it.

To answer your question...VRAM can begin failing around 125°C. In open bench tests, conducted by Tom's Hardware, they were getting 107°C - 114°C. Put that card in a case with poor ventilation and/or a CPU cooler that is putting off a lot of heat and the VRAM could easily hit 125°C. That is why EVGA wasn't comfortable with see the temps, it was cutting it too close.

That was a rhetorical question. Also "
EVGA has investigated these reports and after extensive testing, below are our findings:

• On ACX 3.0, EVGA focused on GPU temperature and the lowest acoustic levels possible. Running Furmark, the GPU is around 70C +/- and the fan speed is running approximately 30% duty cycle or lower.
• However, during recent testing, the thermal temperature of the PWM and memory, in extreme circumstances, was marginally within spec and needed to be addressed."

 

gara024
That was a rhetorical question. Also "EVGA has investigated these reports and after extensive testing, below are our findings:

• On ACX 3.0, EVGA focused on GPU temperature and the lowest acoustic levels possible. Running Furmark, the GPU is around 70C +/- and the fan speed is running approximately 30% duty cycle or lower.
• However, during recent testing, the thermal temperature of the PWM and memory, in extreme circumstances, was marginally within spec and needed to be addressed."

 

This is something that never would have happened if EVGA decided not to cut corners when it came to cooling. They could have easily released this card with proper thermal padding and the entire issue would have been presented.

I think this quote, by GamersNexus, sums it up best "The ACX coolers have fallen prone to a number of design flaws over the past few years, but this one is one of the easiest to prevent".

Source: -->http://www.gamersnexus.ne...mment-comment=10005906

I see your point but like I agree with you that they should of put them on but like everyone is like freaking out that there card is going to die and i have yet to see actual proof of a dead card.Even an evga mod has said he has yet to rma a card that has died of this issue. I think people are just freaking out to this whole situation.

Are you supposed to flash both bios, or just the one? And if the case is the latter, primary or secondary?
I have the GTX 1080 FTW DT card.

gara024
I see your point but like I agree with you that they should of put them on but like everyone is like freaking out that there card is going to die and i have yet to see actual proof of a dead card.Even an evga mod has said he has yet to rma a card that has died of this issue. I think people are just freaking out to this whole situation.

I myself am not freaking out and would have happily done the mod if the return option with a full refund was not available to me; however, my plan is to sell these cards when the 1080 Ti gets released and I was afraid in a loss of resale value. EVGA has done a phenomenal job in the way they have handled this, unfortunately it something they shouldn't of even had to deal with.  I would have happily kept these cards if I would have been guaranteed the opportunity to use their step-up program if/when they come out with the Ti. To me, that would have mitigated any potential negative resale risk.

Troyhe98

gara024
That was a rhetorical question. Also "EVGA has investigated these reports and after extensive testing, below are our findings:

• On ACX 3.0, EVGA focused on GPU temperature and the lowest acoustic levels possible. Running Furmark, the GPU is around 70C +/- and the fan speed is running approximately 30% duty cycle or lower.
• However, during recent testing, the thermal temperature of the PWM and memory, in extreme circumstances, was marginally within spec and needed to be addressed."

 

This is something that never would have happened if EVGA decided not to cut corners when it came to cooling. They could have easily released this card with proper thermal padding and the entire issue would have been presented.

I think this quote, by GamersNexus, sums it up best "The ACX coolers have fallen prone to a number of design flaws over the past few years, but this one is one of the easiest to prevent".

Source: -->http://www.gamersnexus.ne...mment-comment=10005906

ffs they're not cutting corners. DON'T. USE. FURMARK.
 
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2603/~/using-furmark-and-other-stress-tests-with-geforce-graphics-cards
 
in real world gaming scenarios, you're NEVER going to hit the heat levels Furmark generates. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

gara024
I think people are just freaking out to this whole situation.

Can´t agree more.
 

fightinfilipino

Troyhe98

gara024
That was a rhetorical question. Also "EVGA has investigated these reports and after extensive testing, below are our findings:

• On ACX 3.0, EVGA focused on GPU temperature and the lowest acoustic levels possible. Running Furmark, the GPU is around 70C +/- and the fan speed is running approximately 30% duty cycle or lower.
• However, during recent testing, the thermal temperature of the PWM and memory, in extreme circumstances, was marginally within spec and needed to be addressed."

 

This is something that never would have happened if EVGA decided not to cut corners when it came to cooling. They could have easily released this card with proper thermal padding and the entire issue would have been presented.

I think this quote, by GamersNexus, sums it up best "The ACX coolers have fallen prone to a number of design flaws over the past few years, but this one is one of the easiest to prevent".

Source: -->http://www.gamersnexus.ne...mment-comment=10005906

ffs they're not cutting corners. DON'T. USE. FURMARK.
 
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2603/~/using-furmark-and-other-stress-tests-with-geforce-graphics-cards
 
in real world gaming scenarios, you're NEVER going to hit the heat levels Furmark generates. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Furmark aside the fact that they have added Vram pads aswell as a good few have some no or little contact on the originals shows costs cutting or Error is a factor. 
End of the day is a issue with the ACX 3 cooler .  Yes EVGA are working to resolve it but its not  Furmarks  fault asuch especially when the fix keeps it cool and was as EVGA admited a oversight