Originally Posted by bluestang
I'd rather have low ASICS and low temps instead of low volts and high temps. What good is low volts if the temps are too dang high!
And I prefer high ASIC with low voltage and low temp.
The low ASIC, high voltage with always have higher temps and power consumption than a high ASIC chip on the same cooler.
Also a chip with high ASIC on a Windforce cooler say require only 1100mV to reach 1100/1575, the VRM temps and noise will be significantly better than a garbage one that require 1300mV to just stabilize at 1100/1575.
The only time low ASIC is good is for watercoolers and professional overclockers. otherwise a chip with high ASIC is better in everything else.
Originally Posted by starships
I'm really surprised to see people saying they won't be buying Gigabyte cards again/recommending to stay away from Gigabyte cards because there seems to be a trend that their cards are shipping with a low ASIC. ASIC quality isn't the quintessential factor of a gpus overclocking ability, it is meant to be taken with a grain of salt
. I would prefer a higher ASIC card just because, but I wouldn't really care if I got one with a low ASIC, and I certainly wouldn't "blacklist" a manufacturer because of it.
I have to disagree. There are very few exceptional situations where a low ASIC chip clock well.
In my experience with those cards.
EVGA GTX 470 has 67.1% ASIC, was a dud.
EVGA GTX 670 FTW has 88.7% ASIC and was an awesome overclocker, getting 1360 @ 1200mV.
Gigabyte HD 7950 has 58.9% ASIC and is a bit of a dud.
Sapphire HD 7950 (not mine) has 71% ASIC and overclock better my GB 7950 WF3, at 1200mV it can do 1200-1220 MHz. Mine can only do 1100 MHz at 1200mV, 1200 on my chip require 1300mV.Edited by HeadlessKnight - 1/12/13 at 1:29pm