# ASUS GTX 760 DirectCU Mini 2 GB



## W1zzard (Sep 17, 2013)

The ASUS GTX 760 DirectCU Mini is an ultra-compact GTX 760, which enables you to play all the latest games with a mini-ITX system. ASUS even managed to squeeze an overclock into this tiny package, and pricing of the card is quite reasonable, with just a $20 premium over the GTX 760 reference design.

*Show full review*


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 17, 2013)

Am I the only one that wants to see a GTX770 DirectCU Mini 4GB?


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 17, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Am I the only one that wants to see a GTX770 DirectCU Mini 4GB?



No I think you should have more pride in the size of your graphics card


----------



## LeMonarque (Sep 18, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Am I the only one that wants to see a GTX770 DirectCU Mini 4GB?



GTX 780 DirectCU Mini pls.

DCUM version for everything please!


----------



## flemeister (Sep 18, 2013)

LeMonarque said:


> GTX 780 DirectCU Mini pls.
> 
> DCUM version for everything please!


With a VRM daughterboard at a 90 degree angle like their mini-ITX Z77/Z87 boards! 

If that's even possible within just two PCI slots of space.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 18, 2013)

flemeister said:


> With a VRM daughterboard at a 90 degree angle like their mini-ITX Z77/Z87 boards!



The daughterboards are a gimmic on the MoBos... TruStory


----------



## erixx (Sep 18, 2013)

would this run in SLI with a 670 ?


----------



## LeMonarque (Sep 18, 2013)

erixx said:


> would this run in SLI with a 670 ?



No it would not.

But it would run in SLI with blower-style 760, which would be kind of cool because you wouldn't be obstructing the air intake of the reference card.  Same thing with the 670.


----------



## geok1ng (Sep 19, 2013)

*wrong 1600p settings?!*

The review is using quality settings in some titles that would make the game unplayable at 1600p, even for a GTX 770. I do believe that if you wanna test a mid-to-high end card at 1600p, you should at least dial down the quality settings to achieve playable framerates in at least some of the cards.

These games are below 60 fps at 1600p and could benefit from retesting at lower AA settings:
AC3, BF3, Crysis, Crysis 3, FC3, Metro LL, SD, TR.

These games at least use quality settings that make it playable at 1600p for some of the cards:
BI, Borderlands, CoD, CoJ, Diablo III, GRID, Hitman, SC2, Skyrim, WoW.

It would be better for readers to see numbers at 0xAA/2xAA for the listed cards than to browse 8 pages of data with quality settings that are unplayable for all the cards listed. When deciding to buy a GTX 760 i don't see how those 4xAA FPS are relevant. 

Lets take bioshock infinity as the standard: the game is tested at 1600p 0xAA. At this setting at least the 770 reaches the magical 60fps target, so the buyer knows that any card he decides to buy for this game must have "at least" a 770-like performance for 1600p.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 19, 2013)

geok1ng said:


> The review is using quality settings in some titles that would make the game unplayable at 1600p, even for a GTX 770. I do believe that you you really wanna test a mid-to-high end card at 1600p, you should at least dial down the quality settings to achieve playable framerates in at least some of the cards.
> 
> These games are below 60 fps at 1600p and could benefit from retesting at lower AA settings:
> AC3, BF3, Crysis, Crysis 3, FC3, Metro LL, SD, TR.
> ...



I think W1zzard has had years to decide how and what values to include in his reviews. There is no sense in changing the way the reviews are done, otherwise all historical values to compare against become useless. I'm sure you are more than welcome to do things your own way in your own reviews, or check out the multiple external links TPU has to other reviews that may suit your needs.
Also if you're playing games on a 760 at 1600p, I'd tell you you're doin' it wrong.


----------



## geok1ng (Sep 19, 2013)

RCoon said:


> I think W1zzard has had years to decide how and what values to include in his reviews. There is no sense in changing the way the reviews are done, otherwise all historical values to compare against become useless. I'm sure you are more than welcome to do things your own way in your own reviews, or check out the multiple external links TPU has to other reviews that may suit your needs.
> Also if you're playing games on a 760 at 1600p, I'd tell you you're doin' it wrong.



TYVM for you kind and assertive response. If this is par for the course here, it would be better to just leave the forum after my very first post.


"_you're doin' it wrong_" . Perfect quote for the whole line of reasoning you are following.

If using a  760 for 1600p gaming is " wrong" testing it at 1600p is just as wrong. 

Unfortunately the review points in the opposite direction: 760 have juice for 1600p gaming at lower settings in most games. Not that you or 99%+ of steam users would know what game at that resolution is all about.

Some games are tested at 4xAA others at 0xAA. Some tests put out utterly unplayable FPS for each and every card tested, other tests  are capable of actually helping the readers to make informed buying decisions, which is the whole point of reviewing a VGA.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 19, 2013)

geok1ng said:


> TYVM for you kind and assertive response. If this is par for the course here, it would be better to just leave the forum after my very first post.
> 
> 
> "_you're doin' it wrong_" . Perfect quote for the whole line of reasoning you are following.
> ...



I'll say it again. Changing the way the review is done would render all historical values which people use to draw comparisons will become useless by changing one setting. I would like to think that a highly esteemed reviewer such as W1zzard knows what he's doing when he formulates these things.


----------



## LeMonarque (Sep 19, 2013)

Alright, lets unrustle the jimmies, geo.


----------



## manofthem (Sep 19, 2013)

geok1ng said:


> i this is par for the course here, it would be better to just leave the forum after my very first post.



You may be on to something there 

Well done yet again W1zz


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 19, 2013)

geok1ng said:


> The review is using quality settings in some titles that would make the game unplayable at 1600p, even for a GTX 770. I do believe that if you wanna test a mid-to-high end card at 1600p, you should at least dial down the quality settings to achieve playable framerates in at least some of the cards.
> 
> These games are below 60 fps at 1600p and could benefit from retesting at lower AA settings:
> AC3, BF3, Crysis, Crysis 3, FC3, Metro LL, SD, TR.
> ...



You may have a point there. However, with settings turned down a lot of graphics card will be able to produce enough framerates, and differentiating the wheat from the chaff becomes quite difficult. What W1zzard is trying to show is the framerates when you turn up the eyecandy, which is what we are all interested in. There are many other websites which will do reviews which you think are more "sensible".


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 19, 2013)

The point of benchmarks isn't to use playable framerates.  The point is to hammer the card and see how it performs relative to other cards on a level playing field(AKA the same settings).  W1z's benchmarks are for comparing cards, if you want an assessment of what playable settings you'll get at different resolutions with different games then there are other reviews for that.


----------



## illli (Dec 10, 2013)

i wonder why the fan noise is so much greater compared to the previous 670 version.  they're essentially the same item with a just name change


----------

