bit-tech.net

Asus Ares Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 35

Reply
memeroot 27th July 2010, 09:18 Quote
3xgtx480's probably a better place to put your cash

or heck you'd beat it with 2xgtx460's (overclocked) lol

where is my GX2!!!!!!!!!!!

actually want gx2 of this http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/graphics/nvidia-gf104-has-384-shaders
uz1_l0v3r 27th July 2010, 09:20 Quote
I can think of many things that are a better place to put my cash than three graphics cards.
proxess 27th July 2010, 09:21 Quote
Show us Toxic or Ares in crossfire please.
memeroot 27th July 2010, 09:34 Quote
if nvidia or partners could get a 2 chip soluton out they'd walk this gen... well from 6 months behind....

looking at s-islands can ati compete come christmas?
13eightyfour 27th July 2010, 09:35 Quote
Usually im all up for ASUS crazy cards but im struggling to see the point in this tbh. Its just a stock card on steroids, at least the Mars was something new, and the dual 480 card they have floating around is an engineering feat.
But this is just totally pointless, it would get destroyed by much cheaper dual card systems and isnt imo unique enough to justify the quite frankly rediculous pricetag.
xaser04 27th July 2010, 09:37 Quote
An addition of eyefinity results would be nice.

Are BIT going to be doing an article comparing Surround to Eyefinity? I know the likes of HardOCP hae done this but TBH I would prefer results from more than one source.
rollo 27th July 2010, 09:45 Quote
Nobody really cares what you could buy instead

Any person who has £1200 for 1 card isnt looking at what he can get elsewhere, he would probably buy 2 and crossfire them
motas 27th July 2010, 09:52 Quote
Im confused is this dual 5890 or dual 5870? I read dual 5890 chips but that would mean quad xfire in one card?
noizdaemon666 27th July 2010, 09:56 Quote
I think there may be a couple of mistakes in this article lol

I think the spec of the Ares should read as " Graphics processor : 2 x 5870" not "2x5970".

And the analysis page should read " was that the Toxic was quicker at resolutions of 1,680 x 1,050 and 1,920 x 1,200" not " was that the Toxic was quicker at resolutions of 1,080 x 1,050 and 1,920 x 1,200"
maximus09 27th July 2010, 10:06 Quote
I would like to see a comparison with 2xGTX460s as well, Tom's Hardware tests put this battering down the GTX480. wonder if they would beat the Ares and be £700 cheaper.

Oh and there is a mistake in this article: "which was akin to the noise likely to be produced should anyone ever try to force a hair dryer and a vacuum cleaner to mate."! This line is far too humourus for a serious review LOL
r3loaded 27th July 2010, 10:10 Quote
What's the point of this card exactly? You could just take a stock 5970 and overclock its nuts off (possibly adding a waterblock to help). The chips used in the 5970 are specially binned anyway, so they're effectively guaranteed to overclock well.

Oh, and it'd still work out £600 cheaper. Can put that money towards an i7-980X..
Material 27th July 2010, 10:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by noizdaemon666

And the analysis page should read " was that the Toxic was quicker at resolutions of 1,680 x 1,050 and 1,920 x 1,200" not " was that the Toxic was quicker at resolutions of 1,080 x 1,050 and 1,920 x 1,200"

Fixed. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noizdaemon666

I think the spec of the Ares should read as " Graphics processor : 2 x 5870" not "2x5970".

We list the graphics processor specs as 2 x 5970's because while the card uses two 5870 GPU's, they don't run at 5870 speeds, so listing the card as having two 5870's could be misleading.

This was the approach Harry took in his Sapphire Toxic review so I stuck with it for consistency and to allow the specs lists of the two cards to be easily compared.
-VK- 27th July 2010, 11:03 Quote
The point of the card? "Because we can".

Really, nobody makes a card like this as a "sensible value for money" option :P
Telltale Boy 27th July 2010, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material
Fixed. Thanks.



We list the graphics processor specs as 2 x 5970's because while the card uses two 5870 GPU's, they don't run at 5870 speeds, so listing the card as having two 5870's could be misleading.

This was the approach Harry took in his Sapphire Toxic review so I stuck with it for consistency and to allow the specs lists of the two cards to be easily compared.

Without trying to sound rude, this is completely misleading.

Firstly, the whole point of the Ares is that it IS 2 x 5870's. That's what seperates it from the 5970's. The standard 5970's use two downclocked 5870 GPUs whereas the Ares runs them at full 5870 speed.

I could see why you labeled them as such for the Sapphire 5970 Toxic, but I think it would be better to label tham as 2 x downclocked 5870 GPUs, not 2 x 5970 for the Toxic. This is because there isn't really a 5970 GPU, the 5970 IS 2 x 5870 GPUs so by labelling it as 2 x 5970 it confuses people to think they are quad-GPUs.

I really suggest you change it as I was very confused by it till I looked up the specs on multiple other reviews.
mrbens 27th July 2010, 12:35 Quote
I'm surprised something like this doesn't come with a waterblock as standard or a closed liquid loop and fan such a modified Corsair H50. If you have the cash to blow on this you'd not miss an extra couple of hundred to silence it!
javaman 27th July 2010, 12:53 Quote
At the price wouldn't the user who can afford these most likely be using water cooling and wouldn't an HD5970 with a waterblock fitted not be cheaper and out perform the Ares? Wonder if any extra can be squeezed out by removing the air cooler and adding a waterblock.
GravitySmacked 27th July 2010, 13:28 Quote
It's way out of my league price wise but it's good for drooling over.
Andersen1337 27th July 2010, 14:33 Quote
Shouldn't the specs says 2x 5870?
Material 27th July 2010, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material

We list the graphics processor specs as 2 x 5970's because while the card uses two 5870 GPU's, they don't run at 5870 speeds, so listing the card as having two 5870's could be misleading.

This was the approach Harry took in his Sapphire Toxic review so I stuck with it for consistency and to allow the specs lists of the two cards to be easily compared.
PandaMonster 27th July 2010, 15:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material

We list the graphics processor specs as 2 x 5970's because while the card uses two 5870 GPU's, they don't run at 5870 speeds, so listing the card as having two 5870's could be misleading.

This was the approach Harry took in his Sapphire Toxic review so I stuck with it for consistency and to allow the specs lists of the two cards to be easily compared.

That lacks so much logic, I don't even know where to begin. If you used 2x5870's, then they are 2x5870's....

When I read this article, I was fully convinced it was 2x5970's then wondered what the hell was wrong with the FPS numbers vs the Toxic and stock 5970.

Sorry, but knowing that it's 2x5870's after reading the comments, it just all makes so much more sense now. I don't mean to be rude, but honestly that is completely misleading........

If I had a Sentra 1.8 and did a 3.5 engine swap, you don't tell people it's a "3.5 sentra" as that would make you sound like a complete jack-ass, you tell them "it was originally a 1.8, with a 3.5 swap"

Same logic applies here. *shrug*
Material 27th July 2010, 16:02 Quote
If so many people are finding it confusing I can change it.

I simply followed the precedent set by the previous review.

I'm just a little bemused that in all the 78 comments the Sapphire Toxic review received nobody mentioned it once.
SchizoFrog 27th July 2010, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material
I'm just a little bemused that in all the 78 comments the Sapphire Toxic review received nobody mentioned it once.
Just goes to show how much attention people actually pay to these extreme high end cards.

But how about this as a future solution... You name the GPUs/Cards according to the actual GPUs used and don't just make up names according to specs of other GPUs or actual Graphics Cards. Say what it IS, not what you THINK it is and where it should stand against other products.
Anfield 27th July 2010, 17:53 Quote
This card is nice as a proof of concept, but nothing more as one can get 2x 5870s and a 240GB OCZ Vertex 2E for less money.
Teh C 27th July 2010, 18:04 Quote
'it was no surprise to see Ares had also fitted a custom cooler' on the first page. Think you mean Asus.
Sifter3000 27th July 2010, 18:12 Quote
Those of you being insulting in this thread ("jack ass") and taking an aggressive tone could do to calm down a little.

The review was written to be consistent with past reviews in both bit-tech and CPC; this is the first time we've had people complain. The specs list clearly says there are two GPUs on the card; if there were four, it would say 4 x [NAME]. Technically, of course, the GPU is neither a HD 5970 nor a HD 5870, but a Cypress derived chip with a part number.

The question is where to draw the line, and I think, as enthusiasts, we all recognise there's always a debate to be had over how much detail to include (as evidenced by the bloke who made the Sentra comparison which, to my mind, was obscure).
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums