Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Nov 12, 2010.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_580/
A 10MHz factory overclock..why even bother?
10MHz OC... Asus is mocking the consumers advertising that as an actual overclock!
I think it's weird that for a 1% overclock, the Asus model has 2% less power consumption than the other GTX580 you tested.
The voltage tuning and overclocking page really make me curious as to how far the new cores can go on water as heat seams to be the limiting factor as far as overclocks go.
I admit the 10mhz o.c is pretty pointless but as wolf pointed out the 1% o.c with 2% is kind of weird and surprising.
It seems ASUS increased fan speed in their BIOS, and we know since GTX480 that Fermi uses less power when running cooler.
but that is free
Weird with that 10 Mz OC ..... but it´s one of the best looking GTX580´s - clean and black without all that fancy stickers ... I kind a like it but not the price
w1zz only did this review to keep asus friendly, why bother since he already have a reference tested, he should discuss warranty and packaging only
It had a 10mhz overclock thus would provide slightly different results, it shows off the specific asus card, sticker etc and it shows the asus voltage tweak software and shows of its temps and overclocking ability, to think that 2 of the same type of card should not both be reviewed is kinda silly, for one the more review samples of the same cards the better an idea we are given of a specific cores overclocking ability, bundle and build quality.
Even if it did not have a different build quality,core speed, fan profile, sticker and bundle including over volting software it still makes sense to review every single sample that is sent to show what is available from different company's.
Go look through the past reviews on other review sites and see how many of the same card is reviewed on every site, i guess every single one of those was because the site wanted to keep a company happy and not because they were reviewing every sample they got a hold of to review them like any good site should do.
Either that or ignore the multiple reviews of the same hardware and don't complain
I am beginning to like these 580 card's a lot. I really hope the 6970/90 can pull a hat trick here. No wonder why AMD is so tight lip. The 580's caught everyone by surprise.
If the 6970 does not beat this in at least price/performance ratio or overall performance i will be really disappointed, i really want a single card to run 3 monitors and if it was not for the fact i only want one card for the 3 screens i would have already ordered a 580 and have my 6870's up for sale.
Overclocks like this are pretty win win for a company. It's so slight they don't need to worry about a failure rate increase. They can charge the same price. Have a slight spec difference to catch the consumer's eye, and ensure they're always .5% faster in reviews.
yeahh baby ! This is my man hope this week comes to my home !
What I find amazing is that
10Mhz OC + Lower power consumption + As high as 5 fps more in games = W00t W00t!!!!
Here, have a look at GTX580 - 950Mhz Core/4400Mhz Memory benched, amazing that it consumes as much power as the GTX480 theresuspicious
ASUS GTX580 Voltage Tweak Edition
different chips have different leakages, other components have small variances too. that explains the difference in power consumption.
in some benchmarks you see some pretty big differences because the benchmarks have some inherent random variance. when averaged you see that the gain is around1% which is consistent with 10 mhz extra
Kinda off topic, but did there used to be a Folding@Home benchmark will all reviews?
I just read that too, it's in the ballpark of 25% faster than a stock GTX480, more in some cases, and it consumes about 5w more under full load. not freakin' bad.
5970 still the king in most cases...
Welcome to "techPowerUP!"!
You may make mistake because you got wrong score (23424) at 2560x1600@4xAA-16xAF (by program setting or by nV CP setting?) in 3DMark 03, in november 15, 2010 running your specs with GF GTX 480 and Win 7 x64 but it's very probably - true at 2048x1536@4xAA-16xAF.
My PC specs:
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
RAM: 4GB DDR2-800
Videocard: GF GTX 480
Mboard: Asus M4N82 Deluxe
Monitor: CRT 21" Samsung SyncMaster 1100P Plus
I got only 20735 (but normal ) at 2560x1600@4xAA-16xAF (by nV CP setting) running CPU@3.24GHz and Win 7 x64 SP1 with 295.51beta (Q).
And 23840 at 2048x1536@4xAA-16xAF (by program setting) running CPU@stock and XP x86 SP3 with 263.06beta (HQ)
@W1zzard or @moderator: Do you read my previous post????
So your saying, this review(that was done in 2010) is flawed?
Dun dun dun....
Sorry man, but it's a review from 2010. I'm sure W1zzard appreciates the attentative help, but really it doesn't matter that much.
You should answer my post #20!
I don't see a problem at all. You're running a different system configuration. 3DMark 03 isn't even in the review so really, I don't know what your issue is?
i'm not sure what exactly you are asking, but we are using a real 30" monitor, and change resolution in applications. the driver is always left at default and never touched
Separate names with a comma.