ASUS mars II

Well good luck. There are only 999 limited version of them. Be prepared to paid much much more like $2000.
 
I just had one in my hand about a few hours ago in the Asus Booth @ PAX. The thing is a beast of a card! 3 8 pin connectors. Holy Cow!
 
All I could think was...

vdop200.jpg
 
Saw it in a display case at Multiplay. Had to keep myself from pointing and laughing. Such an epic fail.
 
Limited edition ANYTHING that will be nigh worthless in 3-4 years makes me lol.

Then again, if I won one, I'd be pretty excited.
 
Same mouse pad I'm using, but that's where the similarities end. One ROG MARS costs more than my computer, monitor and desk.
 
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=31451

AvP: Mars 2 = 3.5-7.1% faster than HD6990
COD7: Mars 2 = 3.2-4.1% faster than HD6990 (ignoring 1080p test as it hits the CPU ceiling for AMDs at 140fps, plenty enough to play the game!)
F1 2010 1080p: Mars 2 = 6.3-16.6% faster than HD6990
F1 2010 1600p: Mars 2 = 2.7-3.7% slower than HD6990
Just Cause 2 1600p: Mars 2 = 22.9% faster than HD6990
Metro 2033: Mars 2 = 1.4-6.9% faster than HD6990
Starcraft 2: Mars 2 = between 7.1% slower and 12.3% faster than HD6990

So why do I say the Mars 2 is worse than an HD6990? On the whole it seems about 5% faster where it counts.
Simple reason - memory.
If the Mars II were two 3GB GTX580 GPUs it'd be the undisputed king of the graphics world. Not by much, but it'd be the fastest.
As things stand, with only 1.5GB per GPU, at really high resolutions where this card should be used (in particular 3D Vision since it being a GTX590 allows that on one card rather than requiring two), it will fall flat on its face, because 1.5GB per GPU isn't enough for geforces to run games at that sort of resolution, at all.
 
Adzsask said:
Show some proof? I highly doubt two 580's would get beat out by two 6970's let alone a 6990.
Click to expand...

the mars are dual 580's (gtx 590). they call them 580 because they run at 580 clocks not the 590 clocks.

where is the sli bridge in the picture? is that not needed anymore?
 
Adzsask said:
Show some proof? I highly doubt two 580's would get beat out by two 6970's let alone a 6990.
Click to expand...

It depends.

The standard 580's are memory limited at high resolutions.

At low resolutions they ought to beat AMD's offferings, but then its at a pissing contest level where "my 350fps is faster than your 300fps". faster? yes. Useful? no.

The only GTX580's that have been able to beat the 6970/6990's at multi monitor gaming resolutions are the 3GB cards.

The ASUS MARS II, unfortunately only has 1.5Gb of vram per GPU, so it will be no better than running two GTX580s in SLI, and yes, at multi-monitor gaming resolutions, I would expect it to get beaten by two 6970's or one 6990.
 
How much more power are these things going to pull, until you start electrical fires in your house wiring, and trigger brown-outs in your neighborhood trying to run this hardware?
 
Zarathustra[H];1037733936 said:
It depends.

The standard 580's are memory limited at high resolutions.

At low resolutions they ought to beat AMD's offferings, but then its at a pissing contest level where "my 350fps is faster than your 300fps". faster? yes. Useful? no.

The only GTX580's that have been able to beat the 6970/6990's at multi monitor gaming resolutions are the 3GB cards.

The ASUS MARS II, unfortunately only has 1.5Gb of vram per GPU, so it will be no better than running two GTX580s in SLI, and yes, at multi-monitor gaming resolutions, I would expect it to get beaten by two 6970's or one 6990.
Click to expand...

A lot more succinct than my post, this what I mean in a nutshell :p
 
samuelmorris said:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=31451

AvP: Mars 2 = 3.5-7.1% faster than HD6990
COD7: Mars 2 = 3.2-4.1% faster than HD6990 (ignoring 1080p test as it hits the CPU ceiling for AMDs at 140fps, plenty enough to play the game!)
F1 2010 1080p: Mars 2 = 6.3-16.6% faster than HD6990
F1 2010 1600p: Mars 2 = 2.7-3.7% slower than HD6990
Just Cause 2 1600p: Mars 2 = 22.9% faster than HD6990
Metro 2033: Mars 2 = 1.4-6.9% faster than HD6990
Starcraft 2: Mars 2 = between 7.1% slower and 12.3% faster than HD6990

So why do I say the Mars 2 is worse than an HD6990? On the whole it seems about 5% faster where it counts.
Simple reason - memory.
If the Mars II were two 3GB GTX580 GPUs it'd be the undisputed king of the graphics world. Not by much, but it'd be the fastest.
As things stand, with only 1.5GB per GPU, at really high resolutions where this card should be used (in particular 3D Vision since it being a GTX590 allows that on one card rather than requiring two), it will fall flat on its face, because 1.5GB per GPU isn't enough for geforces to run games at that sort of resolution, at all.
Click to expand...

Aha! they forgot to switch to AUSUM mode (6970 clocks) which makes the card a little bit more competitive. Since the mars touts 2 GTX 580 GPU's in all of their glory why not flip the bios switch on your 6990 to run both Caymans in all their glory ;) To get a rough idea you can reference this same review and look at the 6970 crossfire x numbers and compare them to the mars.
 
Where's the SLi bridge in thre front page picture.

I'd just buy three 580 GTX 3GB cards for the money you pay for 2 of those MARS things.

Hey guys, do you get to keep the cards you review? :eek:
 
magoo said:
Where's the SLi bridge in thre front page picture.

I'd just buy three 580 GTX 3GB cards for the money you pay for 2 of those MARS things.

Hey guys, do you get to keep the cards you review? :eek:
Click to expand...

yeah they do(a lot of the stuff they buy out of pocket).. kyle actually did a storage clean out for the people in genmay a few months back to get rid of a lot of older stuff they had reviewed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top