• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

MSI and ASUS Send VGA Review Samples with Higher Clocks than Retail Cards

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,794 (7.40/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
MSI and ASUS have been sending us review samples for their graphics cards with higher clock speeds out of the box, than what consumers get out of the box. The cards TechPowerUp has been receiving run at a higher software-defined clock speed profile than what consumers get out of the box. Consumers have access to the higher clock speed profile, too, but only if they install a custom app by the companies, and enable that profile. This, we feel, is not 100% representative of retail cards, and is questionable tactics by the two companies. This BIOS tweaking could also open the door to more elaborate changes like a quieter fan profile or different power management.

MSI's factory-overclocked GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming X graphics card comes with three software-defined clock-speed profiles, beginning with the "Gaming Mode," which is what the card runs at, out of the box, the faster "OC mode," and the slower "Silent mode," which runs the card at reference clock speeds. To select between the modes, you're expected to install the MSI Gaming software from the driver DVD, and use that software to apply clock speeds of your desired mode. Turns out, that while the retail cards (the cards you find in the stores) run in "Gaming mode" out of the box, the review samples MSI has been sending out, run at "OC mode" out of the box. If the OC mode is how the card is intended to be used, then why make OC mode the default for reviewers only, and not your own customers?



Above, you see two GPU-Z screenshots, one of the TPU review sample, next to the retail board (provided by Nizzen). Flashing the retail BIOS onto our review sample changed the clocks to match exactly what is shown on the GPU-Z retail screenshot.

In case of the GTX 1080 Gaming X, the "Gaming mode" runs the card at 1683 MHz core and 1822 MHz GPU Boost; and the "OC mode" runs it at 1708 MHz core and 1847 MHz GPU Boost. The cards consumers buy will run in the "Gaming mode" out of the box, which presumably is the default factory-overclock of these cards, since they're branded under the "Gaming series."



The "OC Mode" is just there so consumers can overclock it a little further at the push of a button, without having any knowledge of overclocking. Now if the OC mode is enabled for review samples of one company and not for the others, this means that potential customers comparing reviews will think one card performs better than the other, even if it's just 1%, people do base their buying decision on such small differences.

With the case of the GTX 1080 at hand, we started looking back at our previous reviews and were shocked to realize that this practice has been going on for years in MSI's case. It looks like ASUS has just adopted it, probably because their competitor does it, too, "so it must be ok."



It's also interesting to see that not all cards are affected, whether this is elaborate or by accident is unknown.

While we don't have any statements of the companies yet, the most likely explanation is that reviewers usually don't install any software bundled with the graphics card, yet the companies want the cards to be tested in OC mode, which provides higher performance numbers, beating their competitors. That's probably how this whole thing started, nobody noticed and the practice became standard for reviews moving forward.

This issue could affect upcoming custom GeForce GTX 1070 review samples too, we will be on the lookout.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very serious of you. Excellent job!
 
It was the same for the MSI 780Ti. It only goes full speed if you install that stupid app.
 
This is bad news. I was hoping I can get my hands on the ASUS card.
 
Green Team Oaths
Green Team Corps Version
"In brightest day, in blackest night,

No Overclock shall escape my sight.

Let those who worship evil's might

Beware my power--Green Teams overclocking APP's"
 
Yeah good job but the 30Mhz or so differences there are probably negligible...
 
It was the same for the MSI 780Ti. It only goes full speed if you install that stupid app.

R9 270x was the same. +40 MHz compared to retail.

Thats almost VW level of shady business.
 
It's just a few Hz , but still dishonest.
 
It's just a few Hz , but still dishonest.

"Should I buy the MSI card that manages 100.3 fps, or the Gigabyte that scores only 99.9 fps?"
...
" Hi. I want to order an MSI."
 
I don't install manufacturer's apps anyway. Rarely do they do anything besides using system resources.
Also, those overclocks are downright pathetic. Three profiles all within 100MHz from each other? And a required app to enable "superior performance"? It's insulting, imo.
 
Cue the
images


Wait for the Forum posts complaining of

"Why will my ***** Nvidia Graphics Card not reach the speeds mentioned in That Review and Test ?
have i been sold a dud have i Been Ripped off "

cross my Palm with Silver !!!
 
Cue the
images


Wait for the Forum posts complaining of

"Why will my ***** Nvidia Graphics Card not reach the speeds mentioned in That Review and Test ?
have i been sold a dud have i Been Ripped off "

cross my Palm with Silver !!!


Nailed it!

Also noted they are running different BIOS's as well.
 
This seems like a pretty minor deal to me. I don't really care too much what they send them out clocked at out of the box, all that matters for me is what the top stable speed I can oc them to in Afterburner or the oc prog of choice.
 
These modes were advertised on the back of the box of the MSI GTX970 Gaming 4G OC.
 
Credibility lost... cheating is cheating. This is not something minor in my opinion. Even a few hertz can matter in benchmarks and it is important to get a hold of the card's true performance at stock. This is an attempt to fool would-be buyers, making their cards look better than the competitors with better scores in reviews. All tests should be re-run using the stock frequencies of the retail board IMHO.
 
The retail version seems to have a higher (newer) BIOS version, which would explain the different clocks. But that is potentially even worse than MSI/ASUS being intentionally dishonest, because it means the cards TPU has reviewed are not identical to the retail cards, and thus there's no way of knowing if the review is representative of what you actually get if you buy one.

I still maintain that review websites should buy the cards themselves from retailers, then invoice the manufacturers for the cost, rather than accept samples directly from manufacturers. That would completely prevent these sort of shenanigans.
 
If they go through this much trouble to fool reviewers, who is to say they are not also hand binning the review samples to do better in OC tests? :mad:
 
Many congrats to TPU team for speaking out loud for this new episode of dishonesty by PC HW companies. And for some guys here who say that a few % is nothing, I beg to differ as they wouldn't go so far in cheating for nothing. They gained "nothing" and now losing much from press negativity. So stupid eh?
 
Interesting shenanigans here. Not new per se, lots of questionable stuff happening the last few years. People need to look at the bigger picture, that this is a very questionable tactic and was surely going to get them busted and named/shamed.
 
Could just be me, but what is the fuss all about?
So basically, if you want 30MHz more, all you have to do is install a piece of software that is delivered with the card and click one button. Anyone who buys the card has access to this software (and thus the OC clockspeeds), but according to this article, installing the software is something reviewers are refusing to do for reasons not mentioned.
You still install driver software provided with the products, do you not? How is this any different?

As a frequent visitor of this website and reader of its reviews, I'm more surprised to find that many reviews seem to leave out certain aspects of the full product experience available to retail customer like myself.

Which also begs the question:
On the recent products by any of the popular brands like MSI, ASUS and Gigabyte, how do you plan to test the RGB color changing LED functionality without installing the accompanying software? Or is there another way to do this?

I've owned a fair few graphics cards over the years of several brands (including MSI) and usually install the software provided with the products to enjoy the additional functionality it brings. If I choose not to install the software, why would I want to complain about missing the features (or performance) that the free software offers?
 
And, that's why a proper impartial review should be done on retail cards, not on samples sent by different vendors. I'm pretty sure the review samples also overclock better, consume less power and are in general cherry picked.
 
I still maintain that review websites should buy the cards themselves from retailers, then invoice the manufacturers for the cost, rather than accept samples directly from manufacturers. That would completely prevent these sort of shenanigans.
This would unfortunately delay reviews well past the launch date. Consumers need to know how product performs the day one to be able to make smarter buys. By delaying reviews, you would encourage manufacturers to do more monkey stuff knowing people will buy it before reviews.
 
If I choose not to install the software, why would I want to complain about missing the features (or performance) that the free software offers?

Because they made it look like you did not need to install it to enjoy said performance. Its deceptive.
 
Back
Top