Originally Posted by bigjdubb
Well they didn't know enough to mention the variations in the clock speeds from the rated specs until someone else called them out on it. The clock speeds for each mode are clearly stated in the specs, they took GPU-Z shots of the settings out of the box, which clearly show that the cards were in OC mode, and failed to mention it anywhere in their article. Now they are attempting to take the high road and garner some appreciation of the anti Nvidia/Asus/MSI/Big Business crowd. Luckily for them that crowd is fairly dense and equipped with slick foreheads making it easy to pull the wool.
I understand the issue that everyone has. I don't disagree with having some distrust in the two manufacturers for not being upfront with the tech sites about it the setting. What I disagree with the idea that the sites are blameless and that this somehow inflated the test results
. The cards should have been tested in it's default mode and it's maximum setting since it is available and easily implemented. There would be exactly zero problems if the card was sent out with a note stating that it was set to it's max setting/OC Mode. The test sites could have tested the cards in all modes and we would have a complete review of the product instead of the half baked attempt we got.
we are on the same page except the bolded.
to give a reasonable example:
OVERALL SUMMERY of GAMING
MSI (OC mode) 100%
Gigabyte . . . . . 99.8%
eVGA . . . . . . . 99.5%
MSI (gaming mode) 99.3%
both gigabyte and evga just lost some sales due to MSI's shenanigans. as you say, lots of people are dense with slick foreheads. they'll just look at numbers and think, "oooohhh bigger is better!" and buy that card. to think that isn't why those cards were sent out in OC mode is naive.