MSI GTX1080 Gaming X Review
Test Setup and Boost Clocks
Published: 9th June 2016 | Source: MSI | Price: |
Test Setup
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming
Intel i7 6850K
ASUS X99 Strix
Corsair ROG Dominator Platinum 3200
Corsair RM100i
Corsair LX 512GB OS
Corsair LS 480GB x2 Raid0 Games
Corsair H100i
Windows 10
Boost Clocks
As we've moved away from manual overclocking to plough through all of the GPU's that have arrived in the office helped by the excellence of the GPU Boost 3.0 technology pretty much doing this work for us meaning that all of our results are pretty much overclocked anyway. As well as looking at the peak GPU Boost we're going to be keeping an eye on the average boost clock too. The MSI doesn't quite pass the 2GHz barrier we saw from the ASUS Strix, but it's darn close, and the average clock speed shows that this isn't a one off, as the MSI is averaging around 1930MHz.
Most Recent Comments
BTW: On page three of the Review, I think the boilerplate for test rig needs to be changed to your current test rig.
Thanks again for another great review
--Rick--Quote
I bought myself the EVGA GTX 1080 Founders Edition because I installed a EK-waterblock and EK backplate on it. While the waterblock is working fantastically, with load temperatures of 41°C max and idle under 30°C, I find it impossible to get with my card and my system (4930k @ 4.5 GHz, DDR3-2333 MHz) anywhere near to the results you had in Unigine of either the Asus Strix or this MSI Gaming. Unfortunately I lack some of the other software to compare more results.
I'm a bit surprised, because I focused on the overclocking and got my card to 2125 MHz stable, and 1338 MHz on the memory.
While the 2125 MHz is the max stable clock, my card is still over the 2000 MHz mark as most games confirm. Unfortunately it seems to be a bit under the 2000 MHz mark in Unigine Valley 1.0 most of the time. However, this is still beyond the frequencies of the Strix and the MSI Gaming.
I managed to get on 4k 62.1 FPS (no AA) and 32.9 FPS (x8 MSAA) average, which is substantially slower than the 71 FPS that the Strix and MSI Gaming produced. This puts the Strix and the MSI Gaming ahead of my setup by 13 and 6% respectively. I find it hard to imagine that the CPU or something else is causing this, especially at 4k.
In 3DMark FireStrike Ultra, my water cooled card is performing like it should and is slightly ahead of the Strix and the MSI Gaming, but I can't figure out why in Unigine Valley it underperforms this much...
Any ideas?
http://abload.de/img/005lryvo.jpg
The review is brilliant as always
Quote|
Originally Posted by Excalabur50
Yet another top review, I just wish MSI would do a carbon edition with no red accents and a bit of led so it's tasteful instead of tacky
|
i don't even like the carbon that they have done to me that even looks tacky.Quote
CSS Valid