bit-tech.net

Asus Ares Review

Comments 26 to 35 of 35

Reply
cgthomas 27th July 2010, 20:14 Quote
All be calm please, I'm sure a downclocked GTS 240 will beat the socks of this monster.

Currently running BFBC2 at full whack - at 5 FPS. Pretty good huh? I'll take pictures of it and will make you all jealous soon.

(by the way, I tried 3D with this GTS 240 and my mind was blown away, but the game was faulty - as it only was showing slideshows of the game, quite stange!)
leexgx 28th July 2010, 05:05 Quote
lol at above post

any ways
i never recommend an 5970 as 2x 5870 are faster in all cases (unless you went down the pointless 2x5970 route) or for same price as an ares get 2xGTX480 cards that will give more consistent performance overall
PandaMonster 28th July 2010, 06:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sifter3000
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).

Sorry material if my comment earlier was insulting, I love reading reviews here, and I do so all the time.

But as someone said earlier, let's not name it what we want to, we should name it by what it IS.

Thanks for the review.

I never read the Toxic review, but w/e it is it should be named by what it IS, not what it has been "clocked" to.
djescreet 28th July 2010, 09:39 Quote
Just to Quote a small section from the review.....

"Specifications

Graphics processor 2 x ATI Radeon HD 5870, 850MHz
Pipeline 2 x 1,600 stream processors (850GHz), 2 x 32 ROPs
Memory 2 x 2GB GDDR5, 4.8GHz effective
Bandwidth 2 x 153.6GB/sec, 256-bit interface
Compatibility DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1
Outputs/Inputs 1 x DVI, 1 x HDMI, 1 x DisplayPort, 1 x CrossFire
Power Connections 2 x 8-pin, 1 x 6-pin, side-mounted
****************************************Size 280m long, triple-slot*******************************
Warranty Three Years"



280m long, now thats a frikking huge card!!! :D

hehe
DbD 28th July 2010, 11:53 Quote
If you test cards like this you've got to use eye infinity - that's the main reason for that much performance. I suggest you add at least a 5760*1080 resolution (i.e. triple full HD display's) to all your tests.
SchizoFrog 28th July 2010, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
If you test cards like this you've got to use eye infinity - that's the main reason for that much performance. I suggest you add at least a 5760*1080 resolution (i.e. triple full HD display's) to all your tests.

I actually disagree with you here... While special or unique features should be mentioned it is biased against other products that do not support said feature as standard. For the same reason it would be biased to add 3D performance to nVidia reviews.
DbD 28th July 2010, 13:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
If you test cards like this you've got to use eye infinity - that's the main reason for that much performance. I suggest you add at least a 5760*1080 resolution (i.e. triple full HD display's) to all your tests.

I actually disagree with you here... While special or unique features should be mentioned it is biased against other products that do not support said feature as standard. For the same reason it would be biased to add 3D performance to nVidia reviews.

Are you trying to tell me that someone buying a card as high end as that asus one won't be considering eye infinity?

It's not ati only, nvidia does support triple display gaming, admittedly on sli only (although it works on 2 series cards not just the latest)?

It should have been compared at 5760*1080 to Sli 470/480's (which are cheaper I think). Looking at other review sites you can see xfire has rubbish scaling for eye infinity, and probably would get blown away by the 470/480's, this would quite rightly effect the review conclusion.
Anakha 29th July 2010, 08:51 Quote
Where was the GTX480 numbers (I only saw 470's and 460's)? And, given the price, where was the SLI and CrossFire numbers?

I know people b!tch and moan that SLI and CF are no good in unsupported games, but given that even "unsupported" games work using fallback techniques (AFR, for example), then the only "Unsupported" games are very old ones, at which point you can max everything (Settings, AA, AF) with a single card and still have room to spare. I have not yet seen any situation where having SLI or Crossfire makes performance worse than having a single card. In 99.999% of cases, you get the full power of both cards. In that 0.001% of cases, you get the full power of a single card, AT WORST.
Speed 30th July 2010, 16:04 Quote
Why oh why was the GTX480 and GTX480 SLi not included in this review? Seems like a rather major and silly oversight.

Who in the hell cares how fast it is compared to a GTX460!
Publ!c Enemy 7th August 2010, 16:39 Quote
isn't the 5970 Toxic better for the price. lol seems odd talking about price with that kind of money:)
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