Gigabyte's GPU Thermal Paste Keeps Leaking
Several instances of Gigabyte graphics cards leaking thermal interface gel during operation have raised concerns over the quality control of its new graphics cards. Although Gigabyte claims the problem is merely cosmetic, the fact that these problems have arisen so soon after the cards launched isn't giving new owners much confidence in the design.
All graphics cards use some form of thermal interface material (TIM) to sandwich between the big metal heatsink and individual chips and components on the card's PCB, including the GPU itself and memory modules. Traditionally that's been in the form of heat paste, but more exotic solutions are used today, including thermal pads, liquid metal, and in this instance, a "server grade" thermal gel. Where traditional concerns with TIM involved it drying out, this newer gel design appears to have a potential issue with its viscosity going in the other direction entirely. At the very least, something is causing it to slip out of its intended placement.
There have now been three confirmed reports of Gigabyte RTX 50-series graphics cards leaking thermal gel from between the heatsink and various chips on the cards. It puddles around the chips, but as of yet hasn't caused any problems beyond merely looking unsavory, leading to Gigabyte's hand-waving comments about it being merely an aesthetic issue, as per TechPowerUp. But it also claims the issue only affects early production batches, suggesting that there is something about the design that has changed since then, fixing whatever the problem is.
Gigabyte gel slipping out on a GPU.
Credit: TechPowerUp Forum
In each case of leaking gel, the cards were mounted vertically in the case, perhaps oriented in such a way that gravity contributed to the force driving out the gel in a certain direction. But Gigabyte doesn't warn about this in the official documentation for the cards, nor when these cards were first sold. That raises questions about what changed from early batches of the card, and if the change was made knowingly, why wasn't it communicated?
Owners of the affected cards are understandably upset and concerned. Even if the issue is only cosmetic for now, surely leaking gel isn't as thermally effective, or will become less so over time. This raises concerns over long-term reliability, which shouldn't be something a new GPU owner has to worry about. Especially if they paid the inflated prices of Nvidia's new high-end cards, which in some cases can cost over $3,000.
Gigabyte has issued a statement saying that it takes "your concerns seriously," but has made it clear that for now it won't be doing any kind of recall of potentially affected products.
If you have a Gigabyte RTX 50-series graphics card, it might be worth avoiding vertical mounting. At least until this issue is cleared up or understood more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
4 ChatGPT Prompts Emerging Leaders Should Be Using In 2025
Using ChatGPT to help develop as an effective leader Whether you're a teen entrepreneur building your first business team or an educator stepping into department leadership, the desire to lead effectively is often stronger than the knowledge of how to do it well. The challenge? Most leadership development happens through expensive coaching, lengthy programs, or trial-and-error experiences that can be costly and time-consuming. Artificial intelligence offers a practical solution. When used strategically, ChatGPT becomes more than a chatbot—it transforms into a personal development coach that helps clarify thinking and strengthen decision-making skills. These four ChatGPT prompts help emerging leaders build self-awareness, navigate real-world challenges, and lead with greater confidence. Self-awareness distinguishes effective leaders from those who are not, yet most people lack training in productive self-reflection. This prompt positions ChatGPT as an executive coach, generating questions that dig beneath surface-level concerns. Rather than vague journaling, this approach creates structured reflection. The AI identifies patterns, such as perfectionism, fear of visibility, or unclear priorities, that may be limiting progress. How to maximize results: After answering the five questions, follow up with: "Can you summarize the mindset I seem to be operating from? What belief is driving my hesitation?" This moves the conversation from symptoms to root causes. A teen entrepreneur might discover they're avoiding reaching out to potential customers not because they lack time, but because they fear adults won't take them seriously. A teacher might realize they're hesitating to implement new classroom management strategies not because of workload, but because they're worried about appearing inexperienced to their colleagues. This awareness alone can shift behavior and open new opportunities. New leaders typically either over-function by attempting to control every detail or under-function by failing to establish clear expectations. This prompt provides a preview of common challenges and practical prevention strategies. Anticipating leadership challenges enables proactive decision-making rather than reactive crisis management. Understanding potential pitfalls helps new leaders develop strategies before problems emerge. Make it specific: Add context for better results. For example: "I'm a teen founder leading my first team of three classmates on our social media marketing business. What traps should I watch out for when my team members are also my friends?" Or: "I'm a first-year teacher managing parent volunteers for our school fundraiser. How do I maintain authority while staying collaborative?" Advanced application: Request scenarios: "Give me an example of what micromanaging versus clear leadership looks like in a group chat with teen team members." This transforms abstract concepts into concrete behaviors you can recognize and adjust. Many first-time teen leaders discover that setting clear expectations with friends-turned-teammates strengthens their business relationships. Teachers often find that being direct about volunteer responsibilities yields better outcomes than relying on people to figure things out on their own. Effective leaders adjust their approach to suit the situation. This prompt helps explore different leadership styles and consider how each might affect team dynamics and project outcomes. When a teen entrepreneur faces team members who aren't meeting deadlines for their custom sticker business, or when a teacher deals with students who seem disengaged during group projects, ChatGPT might suggest: Directive approach: Implement stricter deadlines with clear consequences. A teen might create formal check-in schedules with team members, while a teacher might establish daily progress reports for project groups. Coaching approach: Meet individually with team members to identify obstacles and realign on goals. This builds relationships and addresses root issues, but requires a more significant time investment. Visionary approach: Reconnect the team to the larger purpose behind their work. A teen entrepreneur might remind their team about the impact their business will have on their college applications, while a teacher might help students see how their project connects to real-world applications. Follow-up question: "Which of these approaches aligns most with my leadership style, and how can I combine elements of all three without confusing the team?" This framework helps young leaders move beyond their default style to consider what the specific situation requires. Teen entrepreneurs often discover they've been trying to be everyone's friend instead of a clear leader, while new teachers realize they've been defaulting to the coaching approach when some situations require more direct guidance. This prompt shifts perspective from uncertainty to clarity by using your existing leadership knowledge. Instead of asking, "What should I do?" it asks, "What would the best version of me already know to do?" Advanced variation: "Act like my future self three years from now—someone who has grown as a leader. What advice would they give me about this situation?" This temporal shift helps make decisions based on long-term principles rather than short-term fears. For deeper insight: Ask ChatGPT to explain why that version of you would act that way. This reveals the values and principles you're developing as a leader. A teen entrepreneur might use this prompt when deciding whether to fire a team member who is consistently late to virtual meetings, while a teacher might apply it when considering how to address a parent who is undermining classroom policies. The "future self" approach often reveals that effective leadership requires having difficult conversations rather than avoiding them. These ChatGPT prompts are most effective when used consistently rather than sporadically. Schedule weekly 15-minute sessions to work through one prompt, focusing on current leadership challenges. Save responses that provide valuable insights and track patterns over time. The goal isn't to replace experience or mentorship but to accelerate learning through structured reflection. Leadership develops through practice, feedback, and iteration—ChatGPT creates more opportunities for productive self-examination. While AI can provide valuable frameworks and perspectives, real leadership development happens through application. Use these prompts to clarify thinking, then test insights through actual leadership situations. Document what works and what doesn't. Share learnings with mentors or peer groups. The combination of AI-powered reflection and real-world practice creates a powerful development cycle that enables emerging leaders to build capabilities more quickly than traditional methods alone. Leadership isn't about having all the answers—it's about asking better questions and acting on the insights. These ChatGPT prompts help accelerate that process, transforming everyday challenges into leadership development opportunities.
Entrepreneur
19 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Money Moves: Top Indian Startups That Raised Big This Week (May 31–June 06)
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. The Indian startup ecosystem continues to see a healthy flow of capital as investors bet on innovation across e-commerce, clean energy, fashion, fintech, and agri-tech. This week (May 31–June 06), several diverse ventures raised fresh rounds of funding, signaling investor confidence in scalable and future-facing business models. From battery-swapping infrastructure to furniture marketplaces and men's fashion, here's a snapshot of the week's most notable startup funding deals. Udaan Udaan was founded in 2016 by ex-Flipkart leaders Amod Malviya, Sujeet Kumar, and Vaibhav Gupta. Based in Bengaluru, the company operates as a B2B e-commerce platform connecting small and medium businesses with suppliers and customers across categories like electronics, fashion, and food. Udaan facilitates easy product discovery, secure payment processing, and logistics support to ensure timely delivery and streamlined business operations. Funding Amount: USD 114 Million Investors: M&G Investments, Lightspeed Venture Partners Snitch Snitch was launched in 2019 by Siddharth Dungarwal and started as a B2B apparel brand before pivoting to a direct-to-consumer (D2C) model in 2020. Headquartered in Bengaluru, Snitch offers trendy men's fashion through its website, mobile app, and brick-and-mortar stores. Its clothing line caters to modern urban men, with a focus on affordability, style, and frequent design drops to stay on-trend. Funding Amount: USD 40 Million Investors: 360 ONE Asset, IvyCap Ventures, SWC Global, Ravi Modi Family Office Battery Smart Founded in 2019 by Pulkit Khurana and Siddharth Sikka, Battery Smart is based in Gurugram and aims to transform EV adoption through its battery swapping network. The startup targets electric two- and three-wheelers, offering a quick-swap model that allows users to replace discharged batteries with fully charged ones within minutes, eliminating wait times and improving EV efficiency. Funding Amount: USD 29 Million Investors: Rising Tide Energy, responsAbility, Ecosystem Integrity Fund, LeapFrog Investments Stable Money Stable Money was established in 2022 by Saurabh Jain and Harish Reddy in Bengaluru. Initially offering digital fixed deposits for risk-averse investors, it has now expanded to include short-duration corporate bonds (2–6 months), mutual funds, and secured credit cards. Its platform appeals to first-time wealth-tech users with benefits like same-day liquidity and lifetime-free demat accounts. Funding Amount: USD 20 Million Investors: Fundamentum Partnership, Aditya Birla Ventures, Z47, RTP Global, Lightspeed Samunnati Chennai-based Samunnati was founded in 2014 by Anil Kumar SG. It focuses on financial inclusion in the agriculture sector, offering loans, advisory services, and non-financial solutions to smallholder farmers, agri-enterprises, and those within the agri value chain. The startup aims to empower rural India by addressing financing gaps in the agri-ecosystem. Funding Amount: USD 6 Million Pepperfry Established in January 2012 by Ambareesh Murty and Ashish Shah, Pepperfry has grown into a leading online and offline furniture marketplace. Headquartered in Mumbai, it provides a wide array of home furniture and décor solutions, including sofas, beds, lighting, and carpets. With a strong omnichannel presence, the brand caters to modern Indian households seeking stylish, functional furnishings. Funding Amount: USD 5 Million Investors: General Electric Pension Trust, Norwest Venture Partners, Panthera Growth Partners Diverse sectors such as e-commerce, fashion, EV infrastructure, and agriculture witnessed robust funding this week, reaffirming investor optimism in India's evolving startup landscape.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
