Maybe the seller (or his supplier) got some reject gpu chips?

---

Huh, nope, it says 192 Unified, whatever that means.

Unified Shaders = CUDA cores.

Perhaps GPUz is only reading the number per SM. The 760 192-bit card is listed as having 6 SM & 6*192 = 1152

Looking at my EVGA GTX 760, I have 1152 shaders with a 256 bit bus width. Direct Compute 5.0

GPU clock: 980
Memory: 1502
Boost: 1033

I wonder if the Direct Compute version is limited by the OS. I noticed the GPU is also listing OpenCL 1.1, GeForce GTX 770 (3072MB) driver: 364.72 OpenCL: 1.1, instead of 1.2 & that driver does support 1.2. As does nearly ever NV GPU since the 500 series.
The only differences I see between the GTX 760 & the GTX 760 192-bit version are lower clocks & a reduced memory interface.

If the GPU does only have 192 shaders and has a default clock of 790. It makes me think it might be a GT 720 chip instead.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

I see the fan type is 散热风扇. I've always liked 散热风扇 fans.

---

WHAT??? I thought they had 风扇散热 fans in them, not the crappy 散热风扇 style fans. I've been screwed! :-O

---

Well, this will be a test to see if my setup on Imagur works, if not, on to the next one. Here are the pics of the screenshot of the GPUZ screen on this card:

---

Based on the tasks taking ~40min when you were running two at once I think these cards might really only have 192 shaders. Given many GTX 750 Ti GPUs will do two at a time in about 25min with 640 shaders.

Have you checked power consumption with the GPU running vs not? If they pull 130-170w like a GTX 760 or GTX 770 does then they might not be very efficient.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

It truly looks like this card is GT720 instead of a 770 judging from GPU-Z

Wow, this just went from interesting to unfortunate. Well, I knew from the begininng that it was a crapshoot, and turns out that it came up craps. Oh well, it was interesting, could have went the other was as well, but like they and I very often say, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. C'est la vie!

---

Wow, this just went from interesting to unfortunate. Well, I knew from the begininng that it was a crapshoot, and turns out that it came up craps. Oh well, it was interesting, could have went the other was as well, but like they and I very often say, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. C'est la vie!

It seemed kind of fishy up front, but sometimes there are OK things from the Chinese knock off market.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

It truly looks like this card is GT720 instead of a 770 judging from GPU-Z

According to the Wiki there is no such thing as a GT720 with a GK104 chip:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_700_series#GeForce_700_.287xx.29_series

GK104 + 192-bit seems to point towards a GTX-760 192-bit, but that should have more shaders and better performance ...

This seems kind of like a frankenstein card that someone has whipped together? Wierd stuff, for certain, and the performance isn't all that great either. Def seems like kind of a kludge card.

---

This seems kind of like a frankenstein card that someone has whipped together? Wierd stuff, for certain, and the performance isn't all that great either. Def seems like kind of a kludge card.

Since everything fits the 760 192-bit GPU specs except the cores. It is likely these cards were built from chips with a large number of dead/non working cores. It looks like you got a few of these. Do they all show 192 shaders?
Using silicone that doesn't meet all the specs for the intended product in a lower end product is a legitimate business practice. It is why you will often see different level products with the same base silicone.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

Hal, if I remember correctly, they both showed the same specs when I ran it on both machines. You are right, it's just that they are labeled as 770's, but clearly stated 192 bit in the items info before I bought them, so it was definately a buyer beware. I really don't have buyers remorse. Do I wish they had been home runs? Sure. But if I wanted a sure thing, I could have bought a couple EVGA 750's from Newegg when they were $99 on sale (after rebate) about a month or so ago. It's turned out to be just an interesting experiment, and a learning experience for anyone who's been following this thread. :-)

---

Awww, Wun Hung Low brand loses another customer, and many Potential future ones :(

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

LOL

Jason, you are much too funny. Just wanted to let you know that. :-p

---

Cheers Al. I try to keep it upbeat on occasion, lol.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

My GTX 750Ti SC:

---

Hmm. So a quick comparison of specs shows I have 3540M transistors, you have 1870M, I have 192 shaders, you have 640. You have 18.8 Gpixel fill rate, I have 20.8, my bandwidth is 90.7GB/s, yours is 86.4. My default clock is 790MHz, yours is 1176, and my memory is 940MHZ default, yours is 1350. Of course, my die size is 294mm2, yours is 148, so less than half the die size, and your release date is about a year newer than mine.

I think it's possible as mentioned above that this was one that had a heckuva lot of bad transistors on it, so they made it into whatever they could, and here is what we ended up with. No idea why the shaders are so whacked, and the bus width is a bummer too, compared to the 'real' 770, but it is a set up from yours. Overall, I think I nailed it pretty good: Frankenstein. Not sure about the Cuda cores, are those the shaders? Thanks for posting that as a comparison, just shows to go you what I've got here.

---

Hmm. So a quick comparison of specs shows I have 3540M transistors, you have 1870M, I have 192 shaders, you have 640. You have 18.8 Gpixel fill rate, I have 20.8, my bandwidth is 90.7GB/s, yours is 86.4. My default clock is 790MHz, yours is 1176, and my memory is 940MHZ default, yours is 1350. Of course, my die size is 294mm2, yours is 148, so less than half the die size, and your release date is about a year newer than mine.

I think it's possible as mentioned above that this was one that had a heckuva lot of bad transistors on it, so they made it into whatever they could, and here is what we ended up with. No idea why the shaders are so whacked, and the bus width is a bummer too, compared to the 'real' 770, but it is a set up from yours. Overall, I think I nailed it pretty good: Frankenstein. Not sure about the Cuda cores, are those the shaders? Thanks for posting that as a comparison, just shows to go you what I've got here.

Keep in mind that they can edit the info stored on the card. The BIOS chip of the card. So while some info on the card can not be tempered with and GPU-z reports it faithfully, the other info can be changed by the seller.

---

Ooooh.. didn't know that. Thanks! Bstrds! lol

---