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



## btarunr (Jun 16, 2016)

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*


----------



## Gungar (Jun 16, 2016)

Very serious of you. Excellent job!


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 16, 2016)

It was the same for the MSI 780Ti. It only goes full speed if you install that stupid app.


----------



## avatar_raq (Jun 16, 2016)

This is bad news. I was hoping I can get my hands on the ASUS card.


----------



## julizs (Jun 16, 2016)

Thanks for the clarification


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 16, 2016)

*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"*_


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jun 16, 2016)

Yeah good job but the 30Mhz or so differences there are probably negligible...


----------



## Air (Jun 16, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> 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.


----------



## natr0n (Jun 16, 2016)

It's just a few Hz , but still dishonest.


----------



## john_ (Jun 16, 2016)

natr0n said:


> 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."


----------



## bug (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 16, 2016)

Cue the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





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 !!!


----------



## INSTG8R (Jun 16, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Cue the
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nailed it!

Also noted they are running different BIOS's as well.


----------



## dozenfury (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## CounterZeus (Jun 16, 2016)

These modes were advertised on the back of the box of the MSI GTX970 Gaming 4G OC.


----------



## najiro (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 16, 2016)

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?


----------



## HD64G (Jun 16, 2016)

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?


----------



## ironwolf (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## pisoimishto (Jun 16, 2016)

Seem's like BIOS Version is different at Retail board....


----------



## audioslaaf (Jun 16, 2016)

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?


----------



## geon2k2 (Jun 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 16, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> 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.


----------



## Air (Jun 16, 2016)

audioslaaf said:


> 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.


----------



## bug (Jun 16, 2016)

HD64G said:


> 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?


A few percent is really nothing in the real world. It's only when those few percent put your card a bit above competition in reviews that they matter.
The thing is, with dynamic clocks and everything, the profile really doesn't matter, unless it changes the target TDP.

Stupid way to use reputation.


----------



## Aleend (Jun 16, 2016)

It would have been nice of you to say that the original article is from hardware.fr....


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 16, 2016)

Aleend said:


> It would have been nice of you to say that the original article is from hardware.fr....


Why, when this thread is about cards sent to and reviewed by TPU!


----------



## natr0n (Jun 16, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> 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?



They do. When I had an msi 7870 hawk all the reviews had 1260 to 1400 on the core, but retails didn't hit anywhere in that region.

http://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/cont...70_hawk_2gb_overclocked_video_card_review.png

lol unreal


----------



## 123abc (Jun 16, 2016)

Much respect to TPU. Much MUCH respect.


----------



## medi01 (Jun 16, 2016)

Cheating.
Lovely.

PS
Respect for TPU for bringing this up.


----------



## Aegdju (Jun 16, 2016)

No credits to hardware-fr.com whom brought the issue first earlier today ?
At least videocardz.com did : http://videocardz.com/61121/asus-and-msi-accused-of-sending-modified-cards-to-the-press

You don't look bad for not being first, but you sure do when you don't mention the source or give credit when it's due.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 16, 2016)

I mean there is no need to blow things out of proportions. The app is a very small one, launches instantly and even auto-switches to the OC Mode if told so; comes with FRAPS style OSDs for a lot of functions, can auto run at start-up minimised; so really I see no big deal.


----------



## truth teller (Jun 16, 2016)

sure, having an app to slightly increase clocks for newbies, so they can experience the placebo effect, is just fine
but sending reviewers a different card of the one being sold is indeed cheating. i hope they get their ass handed to them on emails (who the hell decided to do that? and why two companies at the same time? did nvidia suggested this to the companies? wth...)
also, nice to see btarunr getting into the middle of this, thanks, looking forward to what the companies have to say about this and the upcoming cards (if they even care enough)


----------



## bug (Jun 16, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I mean there is no need to blow things out of proportions. The app is a very small one, launches instantly and even auto-switches to the OC Mode if told so; comes with FRAPS style OSDs for a lot of functions, can auto run at start-up minimised; so really I see no big deal.



That's what they said about mice, too. And then Razer went to require online registration.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that none of these apps are available on Linux.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 16, 2016)

Aegdju said:


> No credits to hardware-fr.com whom brought the issue first earlier today ?
> At least videocardz.com did : http://videocardz.com/61121/asus-and-msi-accused-of-sending-modified-cards-to-the-press
> 
> You don't look bad for not being first, but you sure do when you don't mention the source or give credit when it's due.


You are assuming that their news story has been copied here as opposed to this site's reviewers recently getting the test cards and realising it themselves, you may be right of course.... I am not a reviewer but your link has been updated to comment on TPU's findings also which would indicate this isn't simply re-posting news stories?


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jun 16, 2016)

So, what is "stock" speed when the GPU has three speeds available to it out of the box?  And, if you're the manufacturer, wouldn't you be disappointed if reviewers were only testing your GPU's at the slowest choice?


> "without it you risk test default card "


I think the way they went about it was disappointing, but as long as the clocks used were one of the choices available to the user, then I don't see that any "cheating" was done.

This is not a mountain, this is a mole hill.  Nothing like those Chinese GPU's on Ebay....


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 16, 2016)

Aleend said:


> It would have been nice of you to say that the original article is from hardware.fr....





Aegdju said:


> No credits to hardware-fr.com whom brought the issue first earlier today ?
> At least videocardz.com did : http://videocardz.com/61121/asus-and-msi-accused-of-sending-modified-cards-to-the-press
> 
> You don't look bad for not being first, but you sure do when you don't mention the source or give credit when it's due.


Are making up accounts just to say the same thing, or recruiting other idiots to do it?
I repeat, this has nothing to do with an article from some minor shitty site in France and has to do with the cards being reviewed by TPU.


----------



## Gigabyte-Gaming (Jun 16, 2016)

Hi. What's going on here?


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jun 16, 2016)

Gigabyte-Gaming said:


> Hi. What's going on here?


----------



## xorbe (Jun 16, 2016)

That's bs tactics, but that difference is so small ...


----------



## ermissao (Jun 16, 2016)

MSI and ASUS Sell to consumers VGA's that are slower than the samples they send to reviewers!

Nothing new, but it seems that no one cares about false advertising...


----------



## btarunr (Jun 16, 2016)

Aleend said:


> It would have been nice of you to say that the original article is from hardware.fr....



We both investigated this. We and HWFR were in touch with each other when investigating this. It's just that their writeup came up first. Neither of us needs to credit the other.


----------



## refillable (Jun 16, 2016)

This is very stupid... I can't imagine the number of people who asked themselves "should I get MSI or X running at the same retail speed?" and decided to get the MSI because it gets 1-2 fps better than competition. I don't see this being accidental at all, so I think this is very stupid to be honest. My card is an MSI brand (380X) and it's stupid that they use this kind of dirty tactics. 

Anyways, why is VW known to do these stuff? I don't follow cars but I just don't get it.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 16, 2016)

There is also this:
https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/gpu-boosting-is-a-legal-cheating/


----------



## Aegdju (Jun 16, 2016)

btarunr said:


> We both investigated this. We and HWFR were in touch with each other when investigating this. It's just that their writeup came up first. Neither of us needs to credit the other.



Good to know, my bad.
Sorry for jumping the gun.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 16, 2016)

Now also available in Thai http://www.zolkorn.com/news/msi-and-asus-send-vga-review-samples-with-higher-clocks/


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 16, 2016)

Outback Bronze said:


> Yeah good job but the 30Mhz or so differences there are probably negligible...



This, great job spotting it, great job reporting on it, but indeed ultimately its a small difference but still.
Could argue of its so small why go through with this practice in the first place right?


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 16, 2016)

Today its "just" 30MHz, next time it'll be 150MHz... It's only right reviewers are critical. That's their job. Certainly nice to see TPU caring about consumers in the world where gaming and hardware industry is in absolute shit.


----------



## Deeveo (Jun 16, 2016)

refillable said:


> This is very stupid... I can't imagine the number of people who asked themselves "should I get MSI or X running at the same retail speed?" and decided to get the MSI because it gets 1-2 fps better than competition. I don't see this being accidental at all, so I think this is very stupid to be honest. My card is an MSI brand (380X) and it's stupid that they use this kind of dirty tactics.
> 
> Anyways, why is VW known to do these stuff? I don't follow cars but I just don't get it.



This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal ..


----------



## audioslaaf (Jun 16, 2016)

Air said:


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



Fair enough, though I still find it strange how according to this article, reviewers apparently choose to not install any software besides the drivers. Doesn't that mean you're missing out on certain functionality and features?

Why would you not install the software provided with the product in the first place?


----------



## Air (Jun 16, 2016)

refillable said:


> Anyways, why is VW known to do these stuff? I don't follow cars but I just don't get it.



VW case was a lot worse. They cheated on emissions tests, automaticaly changing performance to reduce emissions while being tested.



audioslaaf said:


> Fair enough, though I still find it strange how according to this article, reviewers apparently choose to not install any software besides the drivers. Doesn't that mean you're missing out on certain functionality and features?
> 
> Why would you not install the software provided with the product in the first place?



Many people doesnt like installing extra stuff. Myself included.

Also, most sites review cards using their default clocks and maximum overclock. Its fine like this, and consistent.

If they did install it, should they try all profiles and post results for all 3 of them? And if not, which one should they choose? I would say the default, "gaming" one. Which you can get without the software.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jun 16, 2016)

the score should be down to much lower then now, for their card that already reviewed on tpu.com if this all was true or shouldn't ?


I wonder, how about the all review for other cards on the past..?

is this the first time?


----------



## laszlo (Jun 16, 2016)

not surprised at all

i'll would be surprised if other consumer electronics won't suffer from same "illness"; same shi.... like VW emission scandal.... one catched  and the rest are coming...

this is the ugly face of competitiveness between companies... but let's not forget that behind any companies are people who implement their own way of thinking

"in $ we trust"


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 16, 2016)

Gigabyte-Gaming said:


> Hi. What's going on here?



I do have a beef with you guys as well. 

I have seen some Gigabyte products get new revisions during the product life cycle. There is nothing wrong in this in general, but sometimes the new revision is more like a new product, arguably changing the used components so much (sometimes to worse as well!), so what is sold no longer reflects the initial reviews done with REV1.0.
Pretty much all manufacturers are doing this, what could *you *do better to distinguish the differences to consumers who are buying your products? At the moment you can't know whether you are getting lets say REV1.0 board or REV1.1 which could have some significant changes.   
At least some of the revisions are listed on your product pages with photos of the boards, so you are already ahead of others.  

--

Worst guys in this gimping over product life cycle thing are arguably XFX and TUL corporations like PowerColor. I have also seen MSI products with cut down reference design components advertised as "Military class quality", ofc in that case its complete BS copy paste on product page. And Asus conveniently removing significant part of VReg bulk capacitance by leaving "unnecessary" components off the board after initial samples. List is long...


----------



## mcraygsx (Jun 16, 2016)

bug said:


> 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.



Exactly what was a fan of bundled software. MSI Afterburner works just for overclocking needs.


----------



## danbert2000 (Jun 16, 2016)

Okay, I understand why this is an issue of honesty and that it's annoying that MSI makes you install their gaming application to enable the listed clock rates. They really should just send the cards out with the default clocks set to the advertised speeds. The issue is that their gaming app is used to change the LED lights and switch between three profiles, and I guess they are assuming that people want the middle of the road profile most of the time (bad assumption).

The workaround for people in the know is just to dial in the advertised clock rates as OC'ing in Precision X or Afterburner is going to have the same effect as the stupid gaming app. That's what I did, I have a profile that is the standard "OC" profile that was listed on MSI's website, and a profile where I crank it up, and one where it's just at the default rate.

I guess my opinion is that anyone reading all these reviews is going to install the app or overclock on their own anyway, and the ones that just buy the card and throw it in are fine with the "Gaming" profile that is default in the VBIOS. Sure, it's stupid to try to force people to install your stupid gaming app to get the full guaranteed speed of the card, but if the only change to review samples were to dial in the advertised speeds ahead of time so that the reviewers don't mess up the testing setup, I think it's understandably non-malicious. MSI just really needs to reexamine why they are adding barriers to get their card's top speed in the first place. That gaming app is useless and robs people of performance unless they aren't stupid, but MSI was not maliciously inflating performance past what any owner of the card is guaranteed to achieve.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 16, 2016)

Someone metioned a workaround in regards to OCing, profiles and software. I have an even better workaround. Dont buy MSI or Asus cards anymore. I know i wont.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 16, 2016)

najiro said:


> 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.



Its 30mhz. Any user that has 2 brain cells and knows how to change a slider in Afterburner can get that clock.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 16, 2016)

CounterZeus said:


> These modes were advertised on the back of the box of the MSI GTX970 Gaming 4G OC.



Yep, Silent, Gaming and OC, now whilst my 970 like every other card defaulted to the Gaming clocks (1114 base, 1253 boost), it would boost far higher than the OC mode (1140 base, 1279 boost) clocks by default anyway, like 1367+

Looking @ overclockers.co.uk just as an example it's sold @ OC clocks for what it is worth.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...ddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-259-ms.html


----------



## jaw shwaa (Jun 16, 2016)

Hmm this reminds me of when the 6850 was sent to reviewers with more shaders enabled then  stock..green team , red team.. "Shady" stuff on both sides of the isle


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 16, 2016)

jaw shwaa said:


> Hmm this reminds me of when the 6850 was sent to reviewers with more shaders enabled then  stock..green team , red team.. "Shady" stuff on both sides of the isle


This has nothing to do with Red or Green. MSI cheated on both...


----------



## Basard (Jun 16, 2016)

Most of the software that comes with the hardware I buy is utter garbage.  It's always a third party's software that I end up installing. 

Geforce Experience is wretched, uninstalled that a day after installing it.  Gigabytes software for this motherboard I have is god-awful, uninstalled it almost as fast as I uninstalled it.  They are always so clunky and bug-ridden.  

Now they want you to install it so you can have your extra 30Mhz.... lol.  Sad...


----------



## qubit (Jun 16, 2016)

NVIDIA back to their old review tricks again! 

Those of us old enough will remember the benchmark tricks of 2003 when NVIDIA deliberately took rendering shortcuts with the likes of fixed 3DMark benchmarks to get a significantly higher score. When the view was changed, a corrupted scene was rendered (the sky I think) revealing the trickery, resulting in a scandal which changed how reviewers benchmark to this day. I know ATI wasn't totally immune from this either, but NVIDIA was worse.

And I'm a long time NVIDIA user, so no fanboyism here.


@W1zzard Will you be updating your reviews to take this into account? I'm thinking running the cards at the same clocks as a customer would get and inserting the benchmark into the results, plus a short writeup about it, with an adjustment to the review score if necessary.

I thought it was odd how the Founder's Edition cards were hitting their thermal limits like that. An unofficial overclock could explain it.


----------



## chinmi (Jun 16, 2016)

I dont see anything wrong with this. Everybody always want to send their best to be reviewed by reviewers.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 17, 2016)

Gigabyte-Gaming said:


> Hi. What's going on here?





> _The problem was discovered with MSI GTX 1080 GAMING X and ASUS GTX 1070 STRIX, so might want to take reviews of those cards with a grain of salt. Gigabyte on the other hand does not use such practices with its G1 GAMING Series._


 



			
				JayzTwoCents said:
			
		

> Hey guys. Thanks for posting this article. I have already compared the BIOS on my card (older version than retail) to the retail cards and also see the same discrepancy in "out of the box" boost clocks. I am being sent the retail bios from a follower and will flash my card with it to compare the results.
> 
> One thing that this article didn't mention is that the latest version of Gaming App is still not available to the consumer who already purchased these cards and so they don't even HAVE access to the OC button. That's why the issue of end users being able to achieve the same clocks with the click of a button is a big deal, especially when they don't have access to it.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 17, 2016)

I don't get what all the fuss is.  Everyone should know what these three modes are available for the card they are purchasing.  If they don't, then too bad they should pay attention to what they are buying.  The simple fact that OC Mode is enabled when sent to reviewers and retail has gaming mode enabled is a non issue for me because these modes are available to the end user with relatively no extra work.

Now, if they had sent cards with a special bios that allowed a higher power envelope, or higher temp limit, or something that is not attainable to a consumer than that is different.  While I think the 970 memory stunt was ridiculously douchey, people were still buying it based on the reviews which showed the card performed exactly as it should.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 17, 2016)

moproblems99 said:


> I don't get what all the fuss is.  Everyone should know what these three modes are available for the card they are purchasing.  If they don't, then too bad they should pay attention to what they are buying.  The simple fact that OC Mode is enabled when sent to reviewers and retail has gaming mode enabled is a non issue for me because these modes are available to the end user with relatively no extra work.
> 
> Now, if they had sent cards with a special bios that allowed a higher power envelope, or higher temp limit, or something that is not attainable to a consumer than that is different.  While I think the 970 memory stunt was ridiculously douchey, people were still buying it based on the reviews which showed the card performed exactly as it should.



Marketing for ya heh? Not all cards boost equal, and Fury X isn't an... you get the point.

Hell as it stands you'd think AotS is the best game ever made.... meh.


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 17, 2016)

qubit said:


> NVIDIA back to their old review tricks again!


How anyone can think that Nvidia is responsible what the AIB's do with custom cards? Point the finger on MSI and Asus, not on Nvidia.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 17, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Marketing for ya heh? Not all cards boost equal, and Fury X isn't an... you get the point.
> 
> Hell as it stands you'd think AotS is the best game ever made.... meh.



This might be the first time I have ever agreed with you.


----------



## Sam008 (Jun 17, 2016)

MSI gaming app does give us features like display settings for movie, gaming & eyerest mode.

The new ones get leds control with them but using afterburner is better because whenever i run gaming app it makes the clocks for my r9 270x go to 1050/1400 (silent mode) by default & when i close it my idle clock is 300/300 not 300/150.

I oced my card to 1200/1500 with afterburner & there is no option for us to run custom profiles from gaming app.

So yes avoid that software & use afterburner.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 17, 2016)

Even though the performance differences are negligible and the software has its merits, shady business practices like these shouldn't go unpunished.


----------



## jtl (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks for the integrity. It goes without saying other reviews may have tried to ignore it/cover it up.


----------



## Frick (Jun 17, 2016)

I agree with the sentiment that it's BS even if it's simple enough to achieve on your own. Normally I don't bother with overclocking, and I hate having to install software. So therefore I get a marginally lower performance than expected.

As @danbert2000 said, they should think hard about why users have to jump through hoops to get the extra performance.

It does depends though. How well advertised is the feature?


----------



## RMX (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks for mentioning this TPU, although I think it's not such a big deal as the performance numbers reviewed are also available to me or any other 1080 GAMING owner and any company ever would send in a product for a review optimized to deliver the best performance. Never a fan of extra software but I've now installed the Gaming app and enabled OC mode for some more performance, so I guess this news is not so bad for me


----------



## Aleend (Jun 17, 2016)

btarunr said:


> We both investigated this. We and HWFR were in touch with each other when investigating this. It's just that their writeup came up first. Neither of us needs to credit the other.



Oh, thanks for the precision i was not aware of that. Sorry for my comment, then.



Caring1 said:


> Are making up accounts just to say the same thing, or recruiting other idiots to do it?
> I repeat, this has nothing to do with an article from some minor shitty site in France and has to do with the cards being reviewed by TPU.



So shitty it helped to unravel the issues in GTX 970 memory allocation and worked with TPU on this matter. You're mad that a french site can be as good as any english speaking one? I guess you pretty much showed everyone what to think about you...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 17, 2016)

Guys relax. This is not a pissing competition. Both sites found out about the same time and they post it. Is not like secret info who post first gets the cookie!
As I said, MSI was doing this since 780 days also, so no big surprise here...


----------



## bug (Jun 17, 2016)

Sam008 said:


> MSI gaming app does give us features like display settings for movie, gaming & eyerest mode.
> 
> The new ones get leds control with them but using afterburner is better because whenever i run gaming app it makes the clocks for my r9 270x go to 1050/1400 (silent mode) by default & when i close it my idle clock is 300/300 not 300/150.
> 
> ...



I buy Nvidia because of their Linux support. Which of MSI's application run on Linux?


----------



## Sam008 (Jun 17, 2016)

bug said:


> I buy Nvidia because of their Linux support. Which of MSI's application run on Linux?


_MSI Gaming App_ & others are Windows-only.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 17, 2016)

bug said:


> *I buy Nvidia because of their Linux support.* Which of MSI's application run on Linux?








I think Linus Torvalds would like to have a word with you.  Pretty sure I can manually set any clocks I want by using aticonfig on the command line without any hassle.

I just find it funny how TPU just decided to whine about this now when my 390 GAMING works the same exact way.

Video of Torvalds publicly telling nVidia, "f**k you."


----------



## vega22 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> I think Linus Torvalds would like to have a word with you.  Pretty sure I can manually set any clocks I want by using aticonfig on the command line without any hassle.
> 
> I just find it funny how TPU just decided to whine about this now when my 390 GAMING works the same exact way.
> 
> Video of Torvalds publicly telling nVidia, "f**k you."



this is not the 1st time tpu has shown this to be the case. 

i am sure i read other reviews in the past stating they had review versions but didn't release reviews till they had checked the retail cards matched.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 17, 2016)

vega22 said:


> this is not the 1st time tpu has shown this to be the case.
> 
> i am sure i read other reviews in the past stating they had review versions but didn't release reviews till they had checked the retail cards matched.


In reviews, sure but, this is coming out and pointing it out directly. I'm just curious why it become worthy of a dedicated news article now and not before.


----------



## bug (Jun 17, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> I think Linus Torvalds would like to have a word with you.  Pretty sure I can manually set any clocks I want by using aticonfig on the command line without any hassle.
> 
> I just find it funny how TPU just decided to whine about this now when my 390 GAMING works the same exact way.
> 
> Video of Torvalds publicly telling nVidia, "f**k you."


Linus is pissed about the _open source_ support (and he's probably right). But if you want to get stuff done on Linux, Nvidia is still the only choice.


----------



## vega22 (Jun 17, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> In reviews, sure but, this is coming out and pointing it out directly. I'm just curious why it become worthy of a dedicated news article now and not before.



because bt secretly hates tpu and keeps telling the truth about amd, nvidia, msi and now asus and not just pushing out page after page of pr bumf?

the fake nature of the whole review system is something most people choose not to talk about. how many reviewers turn round and say the things they were given, for free, before they became available to buy were shit? not many will tell the truth for risk of rocking the boat regardless of the product.

the fact that anybody is willing to hold the system up to the light is commendable imo.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 17, 2016)

danbert2000 said:


> Okay, I understand why this is an issue of honesty and that it's annoying that MSI makes you install their gaming application to enable the listed clock rates.



This has confused me.  I don't install the Gaming app, only Afterburner, with my MSI cards.  Without the gaming app, the card defaults to the "Gaming" default, which is the middle set of speeds between Silent and OC.  I'm still able to overclock up to the OC listed speeds and beyond.  So I'm not sure what the issue is. 

In Summary:  There is zero need to install the Gaming app to hit any of the listed speeds.


----------



## T8RR8R (Jun 17, 2016)

Asus lies, but has never failed on me while  MSI has. I'd never own an XFX product for many reasons, EVGA only makes good graphics cards these days and I hear Gigabyte nightmares all the time. So what's a guy to do anymore?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 17, 2016)

here is asus's response to accusitions:
http://www.pcper.com/news/Cases-and-Cooling/ASUS-Responds-GTX-1080-Reviewer-VBIOS-Concerns


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 17, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> here is asus's response to accusitions:
> http://www.pcper.com/news/Cases-and-Cooling/ASUS-Responds-GTX-1080-Reviewer-VBIOS-Concerns



What a load of arrogant BS from Asus. I say it is time to drag the cat on the floor more, we are not done with them. Not after response like that!


----------



## BiggieShady (Jun 17, 2016)

T8RR8R said:


> Asus lies, but has never failed on me while  MSI has. I'd never own an XFX product for many reasons, EVGA only makes good graphics cards these days and I hear Gigabyte nightmares all the time. So what's a guy to do anymore?


You are left with Palit/Gainward, not the bad choice I might add


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 17, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> You are left with Palit/Gainward, not the bad choice I might add


Plus Saphire and Powercolor for AMD


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 17, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> Plus Saphire and Powercolor for AMD


I wish Sapphire made Nvidia cards as well.


----------



## Flow (Jun 17, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> This has confused me.  I don't install the Gaming app, only Afterburner, with my MSI cards.  Without the gaming app, the card defaults to the "Gaming" default, which is the middle set of speeds between Silent and OC.  I'm still able to overclock up to the OC listed speeds and beyond.  So I'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> In Summary:  There is zero need to install the Gaming app to hit any of the listed speeds.



The difference is in the cards bios. The review sample has a modified bios, which should not be the case in the first place.
And since the review sample can run the oc mode by default already, then why not the consumers cards also?

In any case, a review should show what a product can do, therefor it needs to be exactly the same as the retail product.

ps I don't use the gaming app either.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2016)

Flow said:


> And since the review sample can run the oc mode by default already, then why not the consumers cards also?



Consumer cards can too?

All you need to do is go to our BIOS database and download the BIOS from the review card, flash it, and you'll have the same thing. That applies to both the ASUS and MSI cards, and pretty much every single card every reviewed here on TPU.


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 18, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> I wish Sapphire made Nvidia cards as well.



It does. They are called ZOTAC.
(PCPartner company)


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 18, 2016)

And Zotac does make very decent cards even at lower cost. Usually their AMP Extreme cards are as cheap or even cheaper than basic AIB models from other vendors. Certainly worth thinking about.


----------



## jaggerwild (Jun 20, 2016)

I can hear them prices falling more n more............


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 20, 2016)

Asus actually admitting they do their thinking for the reviewers already... the world is going to shit.

They don't even see what's wrong with it, they just admit and provide argumentation with it. Wow. It's like they're saying, hey stupid consumer, listen, we know what's best for you. Now shut up and buy PLS, you think too much.


----------



## najiro (Jun 20, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Its 30mhz. Any user that has 2 brain cells and knows how to change a slider in Afterburner can get that clock.



Apparently you are CLUELESS about review standards.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 20, 2016)

najiro said:


> Apparently you are CLUELESS about review standards.



Or i dont care about stupid shit like this.

Ill still happily get an MSI gaming 1070. I wont use their gaming app, but instead afterburner and set my own clocks and profiles.

While everyone is crying about this stuff, ill be playing games and enjoying every second of it.


----------



## najiro (Jun 21, 2016)

@MxPhenom 216 

Well, this is something I do not expect average users to understand. Either way, MSI and ASUS GTX 1080/1070 will be just as good as the others but the proven fact (which they already admit by now) that:

Sample Cards ≠ Retail Cards

means
1) false advertising
2) elaborate setup to fool users/reviews

Look, its all about competition. Competing for the *pole position* is the objective of all brands. They'd do everything to achieve that... I mean EVERYTHING. Of course, being the best-performing GTX 1080/1070 will always add appeal and increase demand, this is what this is in my opinion.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 21, 2016)

Just figured I would chime in and say that you are assuming people only care about the stock performance of graphics cards.  That carries about as much weight with most people as the stock performance of a car, truck, or bike.  You are correct in that the average user don't understand the capabilities of cards.  But those same users also don't get online and read reviews either.  They run down to the local shop and ask what should I buy?  They will get told the trendy answer.


----------



## Frick (Jun 21, 2016)

moproblems99 said:


> Just figured I would chime in and say that you are assuming people only care about the stock performance of graphics cards.  That carries about as much weight with most people as the stock performance of a car, truck, or bike.  You are correct in that the average user don't understand the capabilities of cards.  But those same users also don't get online and read reviews either.  They run down to the local shop and ask what should I buy?  They will get told the trendy answer.



Pretty sure this isn't true.


----------



## najiro (Jun 21, 2016)

True, not ALL buyers read reviews or do elaborate research before buying a $400+ hardware but I believe *a larger percentage* of buyers today are wiser and have access to the internet. Even if its just Amazon and they read the product feedback there, it counts. Note that some stores also put up the product's awards from reviews like Newegg. Still, the idea that end-users do not care or are okay with this kind of elaborate scheme is something I'm really against. It would likely boost these brands' confidence about such and get more 'creative' in cheating in the future.. overall, not good..


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2016)

Frick said:


> Pretty sure this isn't true.


Yeah, they are just as likely to watch a video on YouTube. Component reviews cater to enthusiasts only, who, for the most part, don't even care about stock performance; they are looking for the card that either runs the coolest(quietest) or the one with the beefy VRM for OC.



najiro said:


> True, not ALL buyers read reviews or do elaborate research before buying a $400+ hardware but I believe *a larger percentage* of buyers today are wiser and have access to the internet. Even if its just Amazon and they read the product feedback there, it counts. Note that some stores also put up the product's awards from reviews like Newegg. Still, the idea that end-users do not care or are okay with this kind of elaborate scheme is something I'm really against. It would likely boost these brands' confidence about such and get more 'creative' in cheating in the future.. overall, not good..



I'd agree with you if there was a truly significant difference in performance offered by 30 MHz on a GPU that is over 1500 MHz, but the fact remains that that 30 MHz = <1FPS in nearly every instance.

You'll also note that W1zzard lists clocks in his reviews on the first page, and the review lists the "OC" clocks for both the cards in question. He didn't copy numbers from marketing material; he likely tested the card with his own tool, GPU-Z, that he wrote, and got the clocks from there.



najiro said:


> Apparently you are CLUELESS about review standards.



Um, I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing in the real world as review standards. I do motherboard, memory, mini-PC and other reviews for this very site. Our "standards", if you want to call it that, are dictated by us, and by W1zzard. There is no REIVEW STANDARDS BOARD or REVIEW ETHICS COMMITEE that all reviewers are a part of. I am pretty much free to do whatever I like in my own reviews, as long as I stick to FACTS.

FACT: The GPUs in question were tested as they were provided.

FACT: The review states the clocks the cards were tested at

FACT: The review tested the card at those clocks.

FACT: When it was discovered that the tested clocks were not the same as retail, something was done about it.

FACT: Each of these GPUs is "verified" by the OEM to run these clocks if using a tool, and just because some users do not like the tool, doesn't mean the review is posting wrong information. Software tools at this day an age do not affect performance.

FACT: Amazon and Newegg reviews are posted by general users, not by "reviewers", and tend to have more favoritism in them and BS than I am comfortable with.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 21, 2016)

Well said!

I am going to guess we get the cards in "OC Mode" as those two have apps with higher clocked profiles. I don't believe EVGA does have the little penny app that does that for you with one button. I know, like TPU (which huge +1 to Dave's post above), they mention what the clocks are. I know I have mentioned a card comes in overclocked mode and list the ACTUAL (like from a real time monitor that shows true boost) clocks on top of it.

I can't say I feel deceived. Perhaps more aware than some others maybe?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 21, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, they are just as likely to watch a video on YouTube. Component reviews cater to enthusiasts only, who, for the most part, don't even care about stock performance; they are looking for the card that either runs the coolest(quietest) or the one with the beefy VRM for OC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was going to say something about "review standards" but since i dont do reviews i wasnt sure.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 21, 2016)

Here is Msi's official statement regarding accusitions:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles...ment_regarding_oc-mode_on_msi_gaming_x_gpus/1


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 21, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Well said!
> 
> I am going to guess we get the cards in "OC Mode" as those two have apps with higher clocked profiles. I don't believe EVGA does have the little penny app that does that for you with one button. I know, like TPU (which huge +1 to Dave's post above), they mention what the clocks are. I know I have mentioned a card comes in overclocked mode and list the ACTUAL (like from a real time monitor that shows true boost) clocks on top of it.
> 
> I can't say I feel deceived. Perhaps more aware than some others maybe?



I don't feel deceived either, but that is because we are visitors of a tech forum and knee deep in tech mumbo jumbo, closely following these releases and have knowledge of how a GPU actually works.

There is a difference here. Reviews are being read not just by nerds , but by all consumers. I still think it is a rather shady business, just like motherboards with a 1% clock bump.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> I don't feel deceived either, but that is because we are visitors of a tech forum and knee deep in tech mumbo jumbo, closely following these releases and have knowledge of how a GPU actually works.
> 
> There is a difference here. Reviews are being read not just by nerds , but by all consumers. I still think it is a rather shady business, just like motherboards with a 1% clock bump.


But if such info is contained within the review, where's the problem?

Since I do the motherboard reviews here. you'll note I myself include CPU-Z screenshots for expressly that purpose (as do most other websites).

I could do a review with absolutely ZERO benchmarks, and still get my point across, but everyone wants benchmarks, so they get included. If "normal" users are reading reviews, they should also notice things like BCLK speeds, and things such as what this thread is about, too.

There is also advance Turbo profiling in some board's BIOS that affect performance as well. I do make a point of mentioning it in my reviews if it is present. I hounded ASUS about this in my reviews, and today if they use an advanced Turbo profile (such as when XMP is enabled), they give a pop-up in BIOS asking if you would like to enable it.

To me, it seems as most users complaining about this are quibbling about minor details, however, thanks to this, MSI is releasing the same BIOS for the GPU in question to the general public, or you can get these BIOSes here on TPU in our BIOS database.


----------



## wellnow1101 (Jun 21, 2016)

I personally find this hyped up BS to nothing at all. If you want the performance you have to OC the damned thing. Was this used as an excuse to increase site visits? Can't be sure but, imho .... this is nothing but hype for readership.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 21, 2016)

wellnow1101 said:


> I personally find this hyped up BS to nothing at all. If you want the performance you have to OC the damned thing. Was this used as an excuse to increase site visits? Can't be sure but, imho .... this is nothing but hype for readership.


Not a thing to generate traffic. We have plenty.

The issue is that these companies advertise these speeds, and do support them via software in retail units, but the units provided for reviews do not require the software. That makes the reviewed item and the retail item different, which may miss-inform the end user reading a review.

In the end, the differences in performance are small though.

MSI has gone as far as responding, and then releasing the BIOS on the review cards to the general public, which is a fantastic move by them. With that done, users that do not want to run any software for OC have a supported BIOS that can be run, and do not have to "OC", as you put it.

Wanting what the end user gets to be exactly the same as what is sent to reviewers is worth taking action.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 21, 2016)

wellnow1101 said:


> I personally find this hyped up BS to nothing at all. If you want the performance you have to OC the damned thing. Was this used as an excuse to increase site visits? Can't be sure but, imho .... this is nothing but hype for readership.



I'm not on the "burn down MSI and Asus bandwagon", nor am I excusing what they did.  

It is however, real, not hype.  It has been admitted.  It was something two separate sites noticed and investigated.  If anything, it has strengthened the credibility of TPU for not being complicit in the deception.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 22, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> I don't feel deceived either



I do, I bought my MSI Gaming 980ti based on the performance/noise stats I read on TPU, and today I found out that TPU were sent a clocked up review sample.  Not only have I been cheated out of performance for a year by MSI but now I'm going to have to scour the internet to try and find a dump of their review BIOS so I can get the performance/noise stats I thought I paid for 12 months ago.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 22, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> I do, I bought my MSI Gaming 980ti based on the performance/noise stats I read on TPU, and today I found out that TPU were sent a clocked up review sample.  Not only have I been cheated out of performance for a year by MSI but now I'm going to have to scour the internet to try and find a dump of their review BIOS so I can get the performance/noise stats I thought I paid for 12 months ago.



Wow, I wish I had your real world problems, where that is the biggest issue in my life...


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 22, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Wow, I wish I had your real world problems, where that is the biggest issue in my life...



If your MSI 660 was a Gaming not a TF then you would have this problem, that's how long they've been doing it


----------



## Ungari (Jun 22, 2016)

It seems to me that more people are upset with the side issue of software controlled settings, than the original topic.
Had as in other cards this OC Mode Setting been activated by flipping a toggle switch on this card, would we even be talking about this?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2016)

Ungari said:


> It seems to me that more people are upset with the side issue of software controlled settings, than the original topic.
> Had as in other cards this OC Mode Setting been activated by flipping a toggle switch on this card, would we even be talking about this?


No.

Flashing BIOS to a card can go wrong in so many ways, so easily in comparison to flipping a switch.

What makes it even more weird is that it is done for such small increases.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 22, 2016)

I must say that I prefer the older method of a physical BIOS switch than using the user defined software which I think is now prevalent due to the RGB lighting trend.

The difference between these modes is for the ability to tout it's performance per watt efficiency. Had it been stated more clearly that this spec was solely based on the mid-range default BIOS setting, perhaps the retail cards could be shipped with the higher OC out of the box without conflict.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 22, 2016)

Ungari said:


> I must say that I prefer the older method of a physical BIOS switch than using the user defined software which I think is now prevalent due to the RGB lighting trend.
> 
> The difference between these modes is for the ability to tout it's performance per watt efficiency. Had it been stated more clearly that this spec was solely based on the mid-range default BIOS setting, perhaps the retail cards could be shipped with the higher OC out of the box without conflict.


More than likely.

Personally, I'm just left confused by the whole thing. Both MSI and ASUS have great cards here. They don't need to do things like this to have their cards look great in reviews. MSI has a nearly silent cooling system, with aesthetics that are all their own.

ASUS has their own style, with built-in non-disclosed features for OC. Completely different product focus between the two of them. The actual clockspeeds of the GPUs aren't that important when the differences are so small, yet design focus is so different.

There used to be a day where we could expect a 10% overhead in GPU clockspeed, attainable by OC. Having a BIOS that boosts GPU speed a bit reduces that percentage overall.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 22, 2016)

Ungari said:


> It seems to me that more people are upset with the side issue of software controlled settings, than the original topic.
> Had as in other cards this OC Mode Setting been activated by flipping a toggle switch on this card, would we even be talking about this?



No because we would have received the same card as reviewers did (the one we thought we paid for), the reviewers would have shown different scores for the turbo switch on/off and we would have known to turn it on.

There was no warning from MSI that retail out of the box performance would be inferior to review sample out of the box performance.  That's what has annoyed many of us.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 22, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> No because we would have received the same card as reviewers did (the one we thought we paid for), the reviewers would have shown different scores for the turbo switch on/off and we would have known to turn it on.
> 
> There was no warning from MSI that retail out of the box performance would be inferior to review sample out of the box performance.  That's what has annoyed many of us.



Had you been told that the default BIOS for consumers was the middle preset, with the ability for consumers to select the exact same OC preset using their software, would it have been better?


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Had you been told that the default BIOS for consumers was the middle preset, with the ability for consumers to select the exact same OC preset using their software, would it have been better?



Yes because I would have known that I needed to either source a copy of the review card's BIOS and flash mine or just buy another card.

NB: For anyone with a retail MSI Gaming 980ti the "real" BIOS can be downloaded here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/173582/msi-gtx980ti-6144-150622


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Yeah, those 38 MHz REALLY make a difference! 24 MHz on the 1070! Makes a game playable or not, right? Can go from high to ultra with that 1-2% performamce difference in OC mode.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Yeah, those 38 MHz REALLY make a difference! 24 MHz on the 1070! Makes a game playable or not, right? Can go from high to ultra with that 1-2% performamce difference in OC mode.


I think I've posted this before, but I'll post it again.
That kind of difference only matters in reviews. Because all 1070 customs designs will be virtually identical, that 1-2% can make one card (artificially) appear a hair faster than another. This can sway one's buying decision. Personally, I think it's more insulting having 3 supposedly "overclocking" profiles, all within 100MHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

It's not artificial though. Every single card can hit those speeds with a touch of a button. The difference here is only in touching a button or not.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> It's not artificial though. Every single card can hit those speeds with a touch of a button. The difference here is only in touching a button or not.



It's not touching a button, it's installing overclocking software and clicking a button (or you could just download a review card BIOS and flash it so you get the card you paid for).


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

What most people do anyway (install that negligible footprint one touch software)... yep. Its advertised on the back of the box even.

OR, you can risk borking the only BIOS by flashing it. Sounds like a GREAT thing for n00bs to flash a single BIOS... stick with the software greenhorns, stay away from BIOS mods/updates unless you have a dual BIOS. In reality the risk is low, but the return on that flash is even lower than the risk.


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> What most people do anyway



No most people don't bother with overclocking software even if it's bundled, they expect the same out of the box performance that the reviewers got.  Because they expect to be sent the same card as the reviewers.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

First, its not MSI Afterburner (their real overclocking software). This is a tiny arse footprint software meant to 'dumb down' overclocking for the masses by using one touch. Also, this software controls their LEDs. If they don't install it, they don't control their LEDs either. So your choices are to live with that 1-2% difference by not installing MSI Gaming App, risk flashing your single BIOS for 1-2% difference, or install MSI Gaming App software and hit the button...


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> First, its not MSI Afterburner (their real overclocking software). This is a tiny arse footprint software meant to 'dumb down' overclocking for the masses by using one touch. Also, this software controls their LEDs. If they don't install it, they don't control their LEDs either.



Yeah, I totally care what my card looks like inside my windowless case under my desk lol.

Seriously it's getting lol some of the lengths people are going to to try and make it look like MSI did nothing wrong.  They spent three years shipping out cards that were lower clocked than the ones they were sending reviewers, the amount of sales they gained through this dodgy practice is unfathomable.  People should have received cards with equal performance to the cards reviewers did it's that simple.

I will admit, before I knew I was getting substandard performance from my card I didn't care, but that didn't mean I still shouldn't care after finding out about MSI's scam.  I was straight on the TPU BIOS database and downloading the review card BIOS to unlock my cards true performance (without the need to install bloatware).


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

You may not, but in case you missed it, the trends are people like LEDs and use them. Otherwise, you wouldn't see nearly every piece of hardware with it on there...think outside of your personal space. 

I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong. I'm only saying its not a big deal. I 100% disagree with you that the "sales they gained" is unfathomable. The difference is barely noticeable and only noticeable in a review. But that 1-2% is also a known variance/margin of error between different systems. Now, if this was a 100 MHz jump, I think all the bitching and moaning may be worth it. But 24 Mhz on the core in the 1070 when compared to 1600 Mhz as a base clock almost literally yields nothing. Would you like me to post a test for you between gaming mode and OC mode to see? I am thinking it may not be much more than 1% after thinking about it...

People have the same performance in their hands. They just need to enable it with software that most consumers use in the first place. I wonder if people are pissed when they buy a tesla and smash the gas but it doesn't go 0-60 in 3s... oh crap, they have to hit a button for insane mode..... LOLOLOLOL! (yeah yeah, they don't have to install the button, I know!)

EDIT: 3DM Fire Strike Extreme showed 8429 in Gaming Mode and 8468 in OC Mode (.5% difference). 

Testing other games in our suite now...


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I 100% disagree with you that the "sales they gained" is unfathomable. The difference is barely noticeable and only noticeable in a review.



That's the point, lots of buyers base their decision on reviews, and the MSI review cards were able to beat competing cards that the MSI retail cards could not.  It was a deliberate attempt to spoof results and mislead people.


----------



## bug (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> It's not artificial though. Every single card can hit those speeds with a touch of a button. The difference here is only in touching a button or not.


It's artificial in the sense that you're not looking at stock speeds like you think you are.
Above all else, it was a very, very stupid thing to do and it raises concerns about the IQ of the people that did it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

If that was the case, they should have done a better job because the performance differences just aren't there. I'll post up my results here when I am done.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Also, this software controls their LEDs. If they don't install it, they don't control their LEDs either



Actually, GEForce Experience gives you the same LED control over MSI LED's without having to use their stupid gaming app. And then you can use Afterburner as well, which doesn't screw with the power level settings like Gaming app does.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 23, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> Yes because I would have known that I needed to either source a copy of the review card's BIOS and flash mine or just buy another card.
> 
> NB: For anyone with a retail MSI Gaming 980ti the "real" BIOS can be downloaded here:
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/173582/msi-gtx980ti-6144-150622



It's not like the Gaming App software information was not disclosed in the specs sheet, or on the box.
I have to seriously doubt that the majority of people who buy these enthusiast grade cards would not have understood that there are BIOS options that are available for the user to select at will.
The multiple BIOS Modes is featured as a reason to purchase these cards over others, for users who do not wish to manually overclock.

This is simply an unbelievable amount of outrage over absolutely nothing.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

They are not changing anything in the BIOS with the Gaming App software... Its a software/windows based clock change.



rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, GEForce Experience gives you the same LED control over MSI LED's without having to use their stupid gaming app. And then you can use Afterburner as well, which doesn't screw with the power level settings like Gaming app does.


I did not know that. When I install drivers, I do not install anything except for the driver and PhysX. I have never intentionally installed the GFE... (talk about bloatware, LOL!). I'd MUCH rather install the Gaming App than GFE!!!


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

Ungari said:


> It's not like the Gaming App software information was not disclosed in the specs sheet, or on the box.
> I have to seriously doubt that the majority of people who buy these enthusiast grade cards would not have understood that there are BIOS options that are available for the user to select at will.
> The multiple BIOS Modes is featured as a reason to purchase these cards over others, for users who do not wish to manually overclock.
> 
> This is simply an unbelievable amount of outrage over absolutely nothing.



Okay, here's the thing, the are no multiple BIOS modes, there is one BIOS, and bundled overclocking software that can either overclock the card for power or underclock it for silence.  The cards sent to reviewers had a different BIOS that was secretly overclocked by default, this gave both reviewers and customers a skewed impression of the cards performance out of the box when compared to other cards and a skewed impression of what numbers to expect if using the OC software.

Even if a customer would still have chosen the MSI card knowing they were padding their review numbers the should still have been an option to download the review sample BIOS in order to flash the card for true performance (MSI have now released these for the 1070/1080, and you can get the 900/700/600 series ones from the TPU BIOS database).


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I did not know that. When I install drivers, I do not install anything except for the driver and PhysX. I have never intentionally installed the GFE... (talk about bloatware, LOL!). I'd MUCH rather install the Gaming App than GFE!!!



Sadly it's not optional now if you want the latest drivers as they are only uploading them to their site periodically.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

I just installed the latest drivers for the 1070 review a couple days ago. I had the option to install/not GFE.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> They are not changing anything in the BIOS with the Gaming App software... Its a software/windows based clock change.
> 
> I did not know that. When I install drivers, I do not install anything except for the driver and PhysX. I have never intentionally installed the GFE... (talk about bloatware, LOL!). I'd MUCH rather install the Gaming App than GFE!!!



I hear you, it's a valid argument, but anyone running 16GB of RAM or more and a decent CPU isn't usually concerned about bloatware.  I like it because of Shadowplay.  And it doesn't mess with power levels, so there's that, LOL.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Yeah, it isn't slowing anything down, that isn't my point. I was more talking about the footprint of the applications and what they have their hooks into. A tiny arse one touch OC program that controls LEDs and the fan, or GFE (i dont need to explain that), LOL!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> A tiny arse one touch OC program that controls LEDs and the fan



Except....look what happened to P4-630 in the Valley thread.  He had that "tiny" program in use, and it completely borked his power use settings he had in place.  That's not uncommon behavior.  I experienced it as well.  So small doesn't necessarily make it better.  I'll take size (GFE) over what it (Gaming App) does to my system any day, especially if I get some benefit out of it like Shadowplay.  

Anyway, I won't sidetrack anymore.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Anyway, here are my quick results. I have SS for 3DM and Metro. Dirt has the XML. ME:SOM, you will just have to believe me, LOL!

3DM FS Extreme - 8,429 Gaming to 8,463 OC Mode (.5%)
Dirt: Rally - 82.38 Gaming to 83.01 OC Mode (.8%)
ME:SOM - 120.38 Gaming to 121.07 OC Mode (.6%)
Metro:LL - 78.64 Gaming to 78.97 OC Mode (.5%)

Not even 1% difference in this small sample... and you think its "UNFATHOMABLE" how many more sales they got because of THAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oy. 



rtwjunkie said:


> Except....look what happened to P4-630 in the Valley thread.  He had that "tiny" program in use, and it completely borked his power use settings he had in place.  That's not uncommon behavior.  I experienced it as well.  So small doesn't necessarily make it better.  I'll take size (GFE) over what it (Gaming App) does to my system any day, especially if I get some benefit out of it like Shadowplay.
> 
> Anyway, I won't sidetrack anymore.


Power setings for what? As I said, I stayed the hell out of that debacle of a thread after I tried to assist that clueless clown. LOL!

We will agree to disagree on GFE vs Gaming App. Though to be fair, I don't use either outside of reviews so my experience is quite limited.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Power setings for what? As I said, I stayed the hell out of that debacle of a thread after I tried to assist that clueless clown. LOL!



You know, in Windows where you set your energy efficiency, or not, by setting a Performance power plan, balanced, or energy-saving, or set your own by going each and every item.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Weird. I wonder why that would affect it considering it has absolutely nothing to do with the OS. Seems like a one off. Id be willing to bet its a PEBKAC. I will test here and PM you some results...

...I digress in the OT though.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 23, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> Okay, here's the thing, the are no multiple BIOS modes, there is one BIOS, and bundled overclocking software that can either overclock the card for power or underclock it for silence.  The cards sent to reviewers had a different BIOS that was secretly overclocked by default, this gave both reviewers and customers a skewed impression of the cards performance out of the box when compared to other cards and a skewed impression of what numbers to expect if using the OC software.
> 
> Even if a customer would still have chosen the MSI card knowing they were padding their review numbers the should still have been an option to download the review sample BIOS in order to flash the card for true performance (MSI have now released these for the 1070/1080, and you can get the 900/700/600 series ones from the TPU BIOS database).



I'm sorry but a "secret overclock" was not what happened here with these ASUS and MSI 1080s; it was sent with the OC Mode profile selected. The OC Mode BIOS clocks that review samples have are the same OC Mode BIOS clocks that retail customers can enable at will.

Shame on all the reviewers that were surprised by this because they did not even check to see what clock speeds were selected, nor did they bother to test the preset mode options!

I must disagree with this whole concept of solely testing a default setting "Out of the box". These cards are designed to allow users to define which preset mode they choose, this choice is available as soon as one installs the card "Out of the box".
Just because some reviewers or retail customers choose not to avail themselves of these factory preset modes does not mean there was any dishonesty on the part of these companies, rather they wanted to showcase the highest factory OC preset as well they should.

I agree with your point about there being only one BIOS that is flashed, and that is a huge detraction for these cards, as I also prefer cards with a physical BIOS switch.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

@rtwjunkie I didn't see where anyone went wrong with power savings and MSI app in the valley thread...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> @rtwjunkie I didn't see where anyone went wrong with power savings and MSI app in the valley thread...



Hmmm....I'm getting old.  At the risk of further transgressing and (further) derailing this thread, I was mistaken: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gtx-1080-or-1070-fan-poll.223303/page-4#post-3476858


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Betting its a W8 thing... Works just fine for me on both systems in W10.. Id still rather install it than GFE. LOL!

Anyhoooooooooooooooooooo................ 

@rtwjunkie - I was mistaking. It happens to me as well in W10. If Gaming App isn't open, it will change. If its open, it will not allow me to select performance profile. That said, I don't think it changes anything as my clocks are all still stable at my overclock... just doens't allow you to select it?????


----------



## Ubersonic (Jun 23, 2016)

Ungari said:


> I'm sorry but a "secret overclock" was not what happened here with these ASUS and MSI 1080s; it was sent with the OC Mode profile selected. The OC Mode BIOS clocks that review samples have are the same OC Mode BIOS clocks that retail customers can enable at will.



Sorry but you seem to have missed what I said before, the software doesn't switch between three BIOS, the cards only have one BIOS, what the software does is overclock or underclock the card depending if the user wants more power or less noise.  The review cards had a different BIOS to the retail cards which enabled more performance out of the box.




Ungari said:


> Shame on all the reviewers that were surprised by this because they did not even check to see what clock speeds were selected



The funny thing is the clock speeds are shown in the reviews by GPUz, but MSI got away with it for three years because neither the reviewers or the readers picked up on it.




Ungari said:


> nor did they bother to test the preset mode options!



It's not normal to test bundled overclocking software in reviews (outside of overclocking tests, which are normally done with manual software).




Ungari said:


> I must disagree with this whole concept of solely testing a default setting "Out of the box".



That's how it has always been done, and how it will always be done (hence why MSI shipped review cards with a custom BIOS to trick reviewers).




Ungari said:


> These cards are designed to allow users to define which preset mode they choose, this choice is available as soon as one installs the card "Out of the box".



No it's not, the MSI overclocking software has to be installed to allow it.  The retail cards have a balanced mode set in the BIOS and the bundled overclocking software can enable the OC or silent modes, the review cards have a different BIOS with the OC mode set as default in order to boost review scores.




Ungari said:


> Just because some reviewers or retail customers choose not to avail themselves of these factory preset modes does not mean there was any dishonesty on the part of these companies



Yes it does, MSI secretly shipped review cards that were faster than retail cards FOR THREE YEARS.  Now they have been caught they have admitted what they have done, promised it won't happen in future, started shipping retail cards with the review BIOS and released the review BIOS for download for customers who already bought cards.  NB: they have only done this for 1000 series cards, customers who bought 600/700/900 series have to manually find the review cards BIOS online.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 23, 2016)

Faster... by a margin of error difference.

I don't think this happened with the 6/7 series... at least with the cards we reviewed. I would need to double check. The spreadsheet on the front page doesn't show this happening on any 6 series cards. Was the Gaming App even out then??



Ubersonic said:


> The funny thing is the clock speeds are shown in the reviews by GPUz, but MSI got away with it for three years because neither the reviewers or the readers picked up on it.


I mentioned the difference in a review or two.. but didn't attribute it to the BIOS at the time. 

Also, some of the samples TPU listed we reviewed as well and did not receive the OC BIOS.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 23, 2016)

How was it a secret? Because nobody checked? If you review or buy a card, the first thing you check is CPU-Z to see what the clock speeds are against the published specs to see if you got what was promised, or even better.

Shame also on users who bought a multi-preset card and did not understand that they were easily able to switch modes as soon as the card was installed. If the objection is that they did not want to install the software, then they should not have purchased these cards as that is how they operate!

If a card features software to change it's factory presets and LED or RGB lighting, then a thorough review will test this to see how it works for the consumer as oftentimes product software is buggy!

Just because this was how something has always been done, does not make it correct. Many of these reviewers were, and are continuing to take shortcuts in reviewing these type of cards by not exploring all the features.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jun 26, 2016)

Ubersonic said:


> I will admit, before I knew I was getting substandard performance from my card I didn't care, but that didn't mean I still shouldn't care after finding out about MSI's scam.  I was straight on the TPU BIOS database and downloading the review card BIOS to unlock my cards true performance (without the need to install bloatware).



So you don't use Afterburner, Trixx, etc, and you are worried about 30mhz?


----------



## Frick (Jun 26, 2016)

The performance increase is neglible. Why not make it stock? I still don't think I shold have to bother installing software beyond drivers to get the same basic performance as the reviewers. And again, in reality it has no impact at all, so why have the options at all?


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2016)

Frick said:


> The performance increase is neglible. Why not make it stock? I still don't think I shold have to bother installing software beyond drivers to get the same basic performance as the reviewers. And again, in reality it has no impact at all, so why have the options at all?


The difference between silence and oc mode is much larger. Just gives noobs the ability to one touch overclock with the 'intimidation' of msi ab.


----------



## 64K (Jun 26, 2016)

Frick said:


> The performance increase is neglible. Why not make it stock? I still don't think I shold have to bother installing software beyond drivers to get the same basic performance as the reviewers. And again, in reality it has no impact at all, so why have the options at all?



Common marketing tactic. It makes customers feel like they are getting something extra.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 26, 2016)

64K said:


> Common marketing tactic. It makes customers feel like they are getting something extra.



I'd like to see this opinion as part of the reviewers conclusions, but because many simply ignore the software settings and go straight to manual OCs, they overlook the typical consumer experience.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2016)

Ungari said:


> I'd like to see this opinion as part of the reviewers conclusions, but because many simply ignore the software settings and go straight to manual OCs, they overlook the typical consumer experience.




Most don't even overclock bub. 

We've also already mentioned and showed the difference is less than 1% in this case (and likely with most pascal based gpus). 

Can't please everyone... but we cover the vast majority with stock and overclocked results.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 26, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Most don't even overclock bub.
> 
> We've also already mentioned and showed the difference is less than 1% in this case (and likely with most pascal based gpus).
> 
> Can't please everyone... but we cover the vast majority with stock and overclocked results.



Please don't take my comment as directed at you personally, what I said goes for the majority of reviews that I have seen on cards that have multiple factory presets.
As a consumer, I look for commentary on these touted features which are supposed to justify the premium pricing for these custom boards.
If the presets available are not really all that useful(such as the middle Gaming preset), or as in the case of having to now use 3rd party software BIOS flashes to activate them with it's inherent risk, this information is critical to determine whether to purchase such a card.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2016)

I didn't take it personally. No worries! Just trying to share a different perspective.

If you look at it, there are only two modes. Default is 'gaming' mode on these cards (gaming line in all!). That leaves OC mode (in the case of the Gaming X 8G card, 24 MHz) which translates into almost nothing real world (more on Maxwell though) and Silence mode. Again, you do not need to BIOS flash to get the same performance, just install the app and hit the button. You can have the app startup with windows and apply it I believe, just like MSI AB.

Determining if it is worth it for a custom board means to overclock manually and push it like most reviewers do. Going into "OC Mode" would work for 99.9% of FE(reference) cards so that kind of testing really isn't testing anything within the context of the custom boards (be it cooler, power delivery area, etc). You essentially test if the application works. That is all you really get out of it. It isn't stressing the board at all to jump a few MHz without a voltage increase and test the cooler, power delivery area, etc. Its like taking your new Ferrari out on the town instead of to the track where it can be properly tested.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 26, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Again, you do not need to BIOS flash to get the same performance, just install the app and hit the button. You can have the app startup with windows and apply it I believe, just like MSI AB.



Ah see, then there was misinformation on this thread concerning how this was achieved. Some were saying that it had to be flashed.
This is where reviewers could be most helpful in dispelling the bad information and setting the record straight.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 26, 2016)

Not sure who said that, but they were wrong/you were mistaking. I have corrected your thoughts one that once or twice already.


----------

