• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

ASUS ROG ARES II 6144 MB

Again, drivers affecting overall outcome.



And then, it takes the top spot, in nearly every resolution, except 1200x800.


Also, several titles show better performance with 5760x1080 than in 2560x1600, again...driver issues. That's not ASUS's fault.

Thanks man, I will be honest there's only a few pages of GPU reviews I tend to look at: The card, power consumption and relative performance so completely missed the summary 2 :toast: 15% faster at 2600x1600 not too bad, I woulod expect more refinement with mature drivers and working CrossfireX profiles :rockout:
 
Looks like a pretty sweet card. id probably get a GTX690 though still because of the price to performance ratio and performance to watt.
 
They could at lest use 2x6gb just to warrant such a ridiculous price.
 
This is the card that peaks at 480 W in Crysis 2, but when you run furmark it blows up your PSU with 650 W. It reminds me of early nvidia 400 series ferminators.
 
This is the card that peaks at 480 W in Crysis 2, but when you run furmark it blows up your PSU with 650 W. It reminds me of early nvidia 400 series ferminators.

That's just nonsense for 2 reasons, a: it didn't blow up the PSU and if you're running a card like this on anything less than an 850w PSU it's not the cards fault if the PSU does go bang and b: 400 series Fermi never blew up PSU's they fried when running furmark because their power circuitry wasn't up to the task of them being stressed like they were when running furmark (which NV fixed later on by limiting the power when running any kind of tool like furmark)

A lot of people won't even touch furmark these days because of the unnatural load it places on GPU's that they don't get even when gaming at 100%. A lot of cards have died at the hand of furmark, not just Fermi.

So run along now and stop spreading your misinformed FUD
 
This is the card that peaks at 480 W in Crysis 2, but when you run furmark it blows up your PSU with 650 W. It reminds me of early nvidia 400 series ferminators.

That would be the GTX590 cards with low quality parts. Certainly not early Fermi. Nvidia learned that lesson and made a sublime (though expensive GTX690).

If the 690 is an exquisite sports car then this is that very same car but with a tooled up engine. It's way faster but prone to engine faults. And costs more.

Still, it plays BF3 in crossfire (which W1zz had problems running in the past so crossfire compatibility isn't necessarily a permanent problem). Though I';m off to check on other crossfire reviews to see if isolated issue.
 
A lot of people won't even touch furmark these days because of the unnatural load it places on GPU's that they don't get even when gaming at 100%. A lot of cards have died at the hand of furmark, not just Fermi.

Oddly, that was my point, I'm saying that the last time I've seen this kind of furmark power consumption jump was with GTX 480s ...

So not saying enough is like spreading misinformation ...

Weird.
 
Read a VR-Zone review which is in two parts. It states that:

Part two of our review will come later this week when the latest set of drivers from AMD, Catalyst 13.2, arrives with an improved memory manager which purportedly improves frame time consistencies (microstuttering) and general CrossfireX scaling fixes.

Read more: http://vr-zone.com/articles/asus-ro...n-a-different-league/18752.html#ixzz2JIs6CcAl

Can you hold on to that card W1zzard and retest those games when 13.2 comes out? Or is it already on the plane under armed card, off to the next reviewer?
 
Can you hold on to that card W1zzard and retest those games when 13.2 comes out? Or is it already on the plane under armed card, off to the next reviewer?

asus wants to pick it up tomorrow or so to send to some reviewers in sweden. once 13.2 is out we'll see how well these work, and then maybe they get whql'd in april/may
 
A card for a minority, and as expected power consumption is really high together with crossfire problems...
GTX 690 is better overall.
AMD needs to launch HD 8000(GCN2) ASAP, HD 7000 have more than 1 year old, and games like Crysis 3 will require heavy hardware for Ultra settings.
25-30% performance increase from HD 7970 to HD 8970 can make a lot of difference in gameplay experience.
 
Last edited:
Talk about taking a "Brute Force Approach"!!! Brute forces your wallet too. ;)

Well done review, W1zzard.
 
Surprised xfire scaling was so detrimental to this. I thought at this point they were pretty even.
 
Awesome card, but hampered by less than awesome drivers.
Crossfire really threw a wrench in there.
 
Pointless card,at this price you can buy 2x7970, a beefy 360 rad pump,res and full cover blocks with backplates,quality fans and still have money left over.
 
Niche card is super niche, goes without saying you could get massively better performance for $1600.

An impressive piece of kit nevertheless that will always be let down by the software side.

When it does beat the 690 is that extra performance truly worth a whopping $600 more and the considerably higher power consumption? Not really. Especially considering most of the time 690 in those scenarios is perfectly playable anyway, and even if it isn't... well at least you saved 600 bucks.
 
imho this card is way too overpriced
in my view, it'd be better getting 2 HD7970 and buy open loop watercooling

2 x GIGABYTE GV-R797OC-3GD Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit ... = $800
and spend the rest of money to get full gpu waterblock cover, kits and 240 mm radiator ($700 - $800)
 
Me wants 2 of those suckers!! better sell the kids. :laugh:
 
Curiosity...

Anyone else use crossfire 7970's? I had crossfire working in Far Cry 3 but it was micro stuttery occasionally.

I have CF 7970s that I alternatively run at 1070/1800, 1150/1800, or 1200/1800 depending on how much noise I feel like standing (silent/ok/LOUD! respectively).

Zero issues in Far Cry 3 at 1440p with the following settings:
GPU Max Buffered frames = 1
Vsync = 1
and outside of the game, MSI Afterburner framerate limit = 60

That gets me 60fps maxed out with 4xMSAA at 1440p. No microstutter.

Anyways, not a big fan of this card really... just can't see the price premium being justified at all. It's also just not that much better than a pair of high end custom 7970s in CF, while the cost is nearly double.
 
asus wants to pick it up tomorrow or so to send to some reviewers in sweden. once 13.2 is out we'll see how well these work, and then maybe they get whql'd in april/may

Since AMD has the 13.1 Driver, I suspect the Latency Fixed Driver will be the 13.3s, (be smarter if they would wait for 13.4s)
 
What impresses me the most is the card getting cooled by a single 120mm rad. Those are very decent temperatures for 600W or so going through a single rad.


yes i absolutley agree even wtih full water block cant keep so low temperatures with 3x120mm radiators !!

beastly beast is a true beast card...


Hope to see something like this with nvidia gpu s
 
Last edited:
How the hell did this get an 8.9..?

It's weaker than the 690GTX yet costs 60%(!!!) more.
By far the lowest performance per dollar of any card.
Almost double the power consumption of the GTX 690.
It takes three slots + space for the block.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that score seriously?
You don't want to see Asus card reviews in the future anymore? :D
 
imho this card is way too overpriced
in my view, it'd be better getting 2 HD7970 and buy open loop watercooling

2 x GIGABYTE GV-R797OC-3GD Radeon HD 7970 3GB 384-bit ... = $800
and spend the rest of money to get full gpu waterblock cover, kits and 240 mm radiator ($700 - $800)

An open loop with 2 full cover blocks,420 rad (3x140)+fans,fittings,tubing,pump,res cost only around 550$.
 
Back
Top