Personal Profile

Benchmark

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO Review

 

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO Review

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO Review

 

1 – Overview

This GTX 1080 TURBO is the simplest GTX 1080 I tested. By simplest, I mean the graphics card comes with a simple VGA cooler (nothing to see with the GTX 1080 Strix!), no factory overclocking and a minimal bundle.

The GTX 1080 TURBO is powered by a Pascal GP104 GPU clocked at 1607MHz (base clock) and 1733MHz (boost clock). Both clock speeds are the reference ones, no out of the box overclocking. The card has 8GB of GDDR5X graphics memory clocked at 10010MHz like NVIDIA reference model.

ASUS GTX 1080 TURBO homepage can be found HERE.

2 – Gallery

The bundle is minimal: the GTX 1080, a user’s guide, a CDROM with drivers + utilities and an invite code for World Warships:

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO


The GTX 1080 TURBO:

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO


No backplate… not enough expensive to deserve a backplate!


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

The GTX 1080 TURBO comes with one 8-pin power connector: the total power draw can reach 225W (150W + 75W). The TDP of the reference GTX 1080 is 180W. The diameter of the fan: 65mm.


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

Two DisplayPort 1.4, two HDMI 2.0 and one DVI connectors are present.


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

A LED is available to indicate a good power supply (white color=OK, red color=ERROR).


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

The GTX 1080 Turbo versus GTX 1080 Strix.


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO

3 – GPU Data


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO + GPU Caps Viewer
ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO + GPU Shark

4 – Benchmarks

Testbed configuration:
– CPU: Intel Core i5 6600K @ 3.5GHz
– Motherboard: ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming
– Memory: 8GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX @ 2666MHz
– PSU: Corsair AX860i
– Software: Windows 10 64-bit + NVIDIA R376.09

4.1 – 3DMark Sky Diver

29024 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R368.51
28328 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
26828 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
25134 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti – R353.06
23038 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix – R344.75
21964 – MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
21811 – Gainward GeForce GTX 970 Phantom – R344.75
20274 – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R344.75
17570 – MSI Radeon HD 7970 – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
17533 – EVGA GeForce GTX 680 – R344.75

4.2 – 3DMark Fire Strike

Fire Strike is a Direct3D 11 benchmark for high-performance gaming PCs with serious graphics cards.


3DMark Fire Strike

15583 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R368.51
14810 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
13438 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
12514 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti – R353.06
10574 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix – R344.75
9382 – MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
8870 – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R344.75
8203 – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R344.75
6572 – MSI Radeon HD 7970 – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
6399 – ASUS Strix GTX 960 DC2 OC 4GB – R353.06
6235 – EVGA GeForce GTX 680 – R344.75

4.3 – 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra

5125 (Graphics score: 5330) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R368.51
4865 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
4244 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
2617 (Graphics score: 2592) – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R368.69
2178 (Graphics score: 2134) – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R368.69

4.4 – 3DMark Time Spy

6393 (Graphics score: 7449) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R372.54
6162 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
5358 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
4177 (Graphics score: 4274) – EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 SC – R368.81
3658 (Graphics score: 3640) – MSI Radeon RX 470 Gaming X – Crimson 16.8.2
3410 (Graphics score: 3382) – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R368.69

4.5 – FurMark 1.18

FurMark is an OpenGL 2 benchmark that renders a furry donut. This benchmark is known for its extreme GPU workload.


FurMark
Settings: Preset:1080 (1920×1080)

7151 points (119 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R368.51
7063 points (118 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
6233 points (103 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti – R353.06
6143 points (102 FPS) – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
4660 points (77 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix – R344.75
4592 points (76 FPS) – MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
4050 points (67 FPS) – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R344.75
3335 points (55 FPS) – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R344.75
2951 points (49 FPS) – MSI Radeon HD 7970 – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
2733 points (45 FPS) – EVGA GeForce GTX 680 – R344.75
2566 points (42 FPS) – ASUS Strix GTX 960 DC2 OC 4GB – R353.06

Settings: Preset:2160 (3840×2160)

2715 points (45 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R368.51
2624 points (44 FPS) – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
2201 points (37 FPS) – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW – R376.09
1385 points (23 FPS) – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R368.69
1339 points (22 FPS) – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R368.69

4.6 – Resident Evil 6 Benchmark

Resident Evil 6 (RE6) is a Direct3D 9 benchmark. RE6 benchmark can be downloaded from this page.


Resident Evil 6
Settings: Resolution: 1920 x 1080, anti-aliasing: FXAA3HQ, all params to high.

21410 points – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R372.54
21295 points – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
20869 points – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW ACX3.0 – R376.09
18527 points – EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 SC – R372.54
16332 points – MSI GTX 970 Classic – R353.06
14522 points – MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming 4GB – Crimson 16.8.2
13789 points – MSI Radeon RX 470 Gaming X 8GB – Crimson 16.8.2
13405 points – EVGA GTX 780 – R353.06
11935 points – ASUS Strix GTX 960 DC2 OC 4GB – R353.06
11442 points – EVGA GTX 680 – R353.06
8794 points – MSI GTX 660 Hawk – R353.06
5714 points – ASUS GTX 750 + R353.06
4495 points – ASUS G551Jw notebook w/ GTX 960M 4GB + R353.06

4.7 – Unigine Valley 1.0

Unigine Valley is a Direct3D/OpenGL benchmark from the same dev team than Unigine Heaven. More information can be found HERE and HERE.


Unigine Valley
Settings: Extreme HD (Direct3D 11, 1920×1080 fullscreen, 8X MSAA)

102.0 FPS, Score: 4269 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix – R372.54
101.0 FPS, Score: 4227 – ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO – R376.09
90.5 FPS, Score: 3788 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW ACX3.0 – R376.09
86.1 FPS, Score: 3602 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti – R353.06
68.0 FPS, Score: 2846 – EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 SC – R372.54
67.8 FPS, Score: 2837 – ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix – R344.75
63.3 FPS, Score: 2648 – MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming – Crimson 16.8.2
58.7 FPS, Score: 2457 – Gainward GeForce GTX 970 Phantom – R344.75
57.8 FPS, Score: 2418 – EVGA GeForce GTX 780 – R344.75
56.0 FPS, Score: 2344 – MSI GTX 970 CLASSIC 4GD5T OC – R344.75
46.4 FPS, Score: 1942 – MSI Radeon RX 470 Gaming X 8GB – Crimson 16.8.2
42.9 FPS, Score: 1796 – EVGA GeForce GTX 680 – R344.75
39.9 FPS, Score: 1668 – MSI Radeon HD 7970 – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
35.8 FPS, Score: 1500 – ASUS Strix GTX 960 DC2 OC 4GB – R353.06
34.6 FPS, Score: 1446 – EVGA GeForce GTX 580 – R344.75
32.4 FPS, Score: 1358 – MSI GTX 660 Hawk – R353.06
29.3 FPS, Score: 1224 – Sapphire Radeon HD 6970 – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL
25.6 FPS, Score: 1071 – EVGA GeForce GTX 480 – R344.75
19.4 FPS, Score: 812 – ASUS GeForce GTX 750 – R344.75
16.2 FPS, Score: 679 – ASUS Radeon HD 7770 DC – Catalyst 14.9 WHQL

5 – Burn-in Test

Testbed configuration:
– CPU: Intel Core i5 6600K @ 3.5GHz
– Motherboard: ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming
– Memory: 8GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX @ 2666MHz
– PSU: Corsair AX860i
– Software: Windows 10 64-bit + NVIDIA R376.09

At idle state, the total power consumption of the testbed is 38W. The GPU temperature is 30°C. The VGA cooler is barely audible but we can hear it (open case).

To stress test the GTX 1080 TURBO, I’m going to use the latest FurMark 1.18.2. A resolution of 1024×768 is enough to stress test the graphics card.

The first stress test is done with the default power target: 100%TDP. After 5 minutes, the total power consumption of the testbed was 233W and the GPU temperature was 79°C.

Before starting the second stress test, I quickly launched MSI Afterburner and set the power target to the maximal value. For this GTX 1080 TURBO, the max value is 120%TDP. Now results are a bit different: the total power consumption jumped to 267W and the GPU temperature reached 83°C. The VGA cooler was noisy…


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO - FurMark stress test

An approximation of the graphics card power consumption is:

P = (267 – 38 – 20) x 0.9
P = 188W @ 120%TDP

where 0.9 the the power efficiency factor of the Corsair AX860i PSU, and 20W is the additional power draw of the CPU.

Thermal Imaging

Idle state


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO - Thermal imaging - idle state

Load state


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO - Thermal imaging - stress test

6 – Conclusion

This GTX 1080 TURBO is a basic GTX 1080. The performances are good and in the expected range for a GTX 1080 but that’s all. The card has a cheap VGA cooler: at idle the noise is barely audible (good!) but under heavy load, the cooler is noisy (not good!!). And the 0dB fan technology we can find on other models? Not present… This kind of VGA cooler should not be there: it’s a GTX 1080 and a high-end graphics card based on a GP104 GPU deserves a decent VGA cooler.

The GPU temperature at idle state is good (30°C) but can exceed 80°C on load. There is no backplate for mechanical protection and heat dissipation. Compared to other models like the GTX 1080 Strix, this card is cheaper. So if you really need a GTX 1080 for its graphics performances but you don’t want to spend too much money, this is your card.

Now if you hesitate, maybe a graphics card like the EVGA GTX 1070 FTW would be a better choice: very good performances, noiseless and cheaper…


ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 TURBO
Thanks to Internex for this ASUS GTX 1080 Turbo!

AMD Ryzen Downcore Control

 

AMD Ryzen 7 processor

AMD Ryzen Downcore Control

AMD Ryzen 7 processors comes with a nice feature: the downcore control. This feature allows to enable / disable cores. Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 chips use the same die, which is made up of two CCX (Cpu CompleX), each CCX having 4 cores. So disabling cores on Ryzen 7 makes it possible to emulate a Ryzen 5 CPU.

 

AMD Ryzen CCX

AMD Ryzen CCX

The downcore control is an option available in the BIOS of X370 motherboards (maybe on other chipsets like the B350 too, I don’t know).

Here is the downcore control in the MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon BIOS:

 

MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon - Downcore control in the BIOS

MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon – Downcore control in the BIOS

 

A Ryzen 7 CPU has two CCX with all cores enabled (8 cores or 8C/16T). It’s a HEIGHT (4 + 4) or Auto configuration:

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

 

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control - Auto

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control – Auto

A Ryzen 5 1600 or 1600X has two CCX and 6 cores (6C/12T) enabled:

SIX (3 + 3)

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

 

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control - SIX (3 + 3)

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control – SIX (3 + 3)

A Ryzen 5 1400 or 1500X has two CCX and 4 cores (4C/8T) enabled. This can be emulated on a Ryzen 7 with two configurations: FOUR (2 + 2) or FOUR (4 + 0).

FOUR (2 + 2)

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

FOUR (4 + 0)
This configuration is interesting because it uses only one CCX and avoids CCX inter-connection issues (mainly the slowness: two cores on different CCX can communicate at around 30GB/s –via Ryzen Infinity Fabric which depends on the memory controller clock speed– while two cores on the same CCX can communicate at 175GB/s).

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

 

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control - FOUR (2 + 2)

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control – FOUR (2 + 2)

The downcore control allows to emulate 3C/6T and 2C/4T CPUs (Ryzen 3?) with the following configurations:

THREE (3 + 0)

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

 

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control - THREE (3 + 0)

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control – THREE (3 + 0)

TWO (1 + 1)

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

TWO (2 + 0)

1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

 

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control - TWO (1 + 1)

AMD Ryzen 7 Downcore control – TWO (1 + 1)

 

Fable Legends: AMD and Nvidia go head-to-head in latest DirectX 12 benchmark

As DirectX 12 and Windows 10 roll out across the PC ecosystem, the number of titles that support Microsoft’s new API is steadily growing. Last month, we previewed Ashes of the Singularity and its DirectX 12 performance; today we’re examining Microsoft’s Fable Legends. This upcoming title is expected to debut on both Windows PCs and the Xbox One and is built with Unreal Engine 4.

Like Ashes, Fable Legends is still very much a work-in-progress. Unlike Ashes of the Singularity, which can currently be bought and played, Microsoft chose to distribute a standalone benchmark for its first DirectX 12 title. The test has little in the way of configurable options and performs a series of flybys through complex environments. Each flyby highlights a different aspect of the game, including its day/night cycle, foliage and building rendering, and one impressively ugly troll. If Ashes of the Singularity gave us a peek at how DX12 would handle several dozen units and intense particle effects, Fable Legends looks more like a conventional first-person RPG or FPS.

Fable2

There are other facets to Fable Legends that make this a particularly interesting match-up, even if it’s still very early in the DX12 development cycle. Unlike Ashes of the Singularity, which is distributed through Oxide, this is a test distributed directly by Microsoft. It uses the Unreal 4 engine — and Nvidia and Epic, Unreal’s developer, have a long history of close collaboration. Last year, Nvidia announced GameWorks support for UE4, and the UE3 engine was an early supporter of PhysX on both Ageia PPUs and later, Nvidia GeForce cards.

Test setup

We tested the GTX 980 Ti and Radeon Fury X in Windows 10 using the latest version of the operating system. Our testbed was an Asus X99-Deluxe motherboard with a Core i7-5960X, 16GB of DDR4-2667 memory. We tested an AMD-provided beta driver for the Fury X and with Nvidia’s latest WHQL-approved driver, 355.98. NVidia hasn’t released a beta Windows 10 driver since last April, and the company didn’t contact us to offer a specific driver for the Fable Legends debut.

Fable3

The benchmark itself was provided by Microsoft and can run in a limited number of modes. Microsoft provided three presets — a 720p “Low” setting, a 1080p “Ultra” and a 4K “Ultra” benchmark. There are no user-configurable options besides enabling or disabling V-Sync (we tested with V-Sync disabled) and the ability to specify low settings or ultra settings. There is no DX11 version of the benchmark. We ran all three variants on both the Fury X and GTX 980 Ti.

Test Results (Original and Amended):

Once other sites began posting their own test results, it became obvious that our own 980 Ti and Fury X benchmarks were both running more slowly than they should have. It’s normal to see some variation between review sites, but gaps of 15-20% in a benchmark with no configurable options? That meant a different problem. Initial retests confirmed the figures shown below, even after wiping and reinstalling drivers.

FableLegends

The next thing to check was power management — and this is where we found our smoking gun. We tested Windows 10 in its “Balanced” power configuration, which is our standard method of testing all hardware. While we sometimes increase to “High Performance” in corner cases or to measure its impact on power consumption, Windows can generally be counted on to handle power settings, and there’s normally no performance penalty for using this mode.

Imagine our surprise, then, to see the following when we fired up the Fable benchmark:

 

Fable-Bench

The benchmark is actively running in the screenshot above, with power conservation mode and clock speed visible at the same time. And while CPU clock speed isn’t the determining factor in most titles, clocking down to 1.17GHz is guaranteed to have an impact on overall frame rates. Switching to “High Performance” pegged the CPU clock between 3.2 and 3.3GHz — exactly where we’d expect it to be. It’s not clear what caused this problem — it’s either a BIOS issue with the Asus X99-Deluxe or an odd driver bug in Windows 10, but we’ve retested both GPUs in High Performance mode.

Fable-RetestThese new results are significantly different from our previous tests. 4K performance is unchanged, and the two GPUs still tie, but 1080p performance improves by roughly 8% on the GTX 980 Ti and 6% on the Fury X. Aftermarket GTX 980 Ti results show higher-clocked manufacturing variants of that card as outperforming the R9 Fury X, and those are perfectly valid data points — if you want to pay the relatively modest price premium for a high-end card with more clock headroom, you can expect a commensurate payoff in this test. Meanwhile, the R9 Fury X no longer wins 720p as it did before. Both cards are faster here, but the GTX gained much more from the clock speed boost, leaping up 27%, compared to just 2% for AMD. While this conforms to our general test trends in DX11, in which AMD performs more capably at higher resolutions, it’s still unusual to see only one GPU respond so strongly to such ludicrously low clock speeds.

These new runs, like the initials, were performed multiple times. We ran the benchmark 4x on each card, at each quality preset, but threw out the first run in each case. We also threw out runs that appeared unusually far from the average.

Why include AMD results?

In our initial coverage for this article, we included a set of AMD-provided test results. This was mostly done for practical reasons — I don’t actually have an R9 390X, 390, or R9 380, and therefore couldn’t compare performance in the midrange graphics stack. Our decision to include this information “shocked” Nvidia’s PR team, which pointed out that no other reviewer had found the R9 390 winning past the GTX 980.

Implications of impropriety deserve to be taken seriously, as do charges that test results have misrepresented performance. So what’s the situation here? While we may have shown you chart data before, AMD’s reviewer guide contains the raw data values themselves. According to AMD, the GTX 980 scored 65.36 FPS in the 1080p Ultra benchmark using Nvidia’s 355.98 driver (the same we driver we tested). Our own results actually point to the GTX 980 being slightly slower — when we put the card through its paces for this section of our coverage, it landed at 63.51 FPS. Still, that’s just a 3% difference.

AMD-Perf1

It’s absolutely true that Tech Report’s excellent coverage shows the GTX 980 beating past the R9 390  (TR was the only website to test an R9 390 in the first place). But that doesn’t mean AMD’s data is non-representative. Tech Report notes that it used a Gigabyte GTX 980, with a base clock of 1228MHz and a boost clock of 1329MHz. That’s 9% faster than the clocks on my own reference GTX 980 (1127MHz and 1216MHz respectively).

Multiply our 63.51 FPS by 1.09x, and you end up with 69 FPS — exactly what Tech Report reported for the GTX 980. And if you have an NV GTX 980 clocked at this speed, yes, you will outperform a stock-clocked R9 390. That, however, doesn’t mean that AMD lied in its test results. A quick trip to Newegg reveals that GTX 980s ship in a variety of clocks, from a low of 1126MHz to a high of 1304MHz. That, in turn, means that the highest-end GTX 980 is as much as 15% faster than the stock model. Buyers who tend to buy on price are much more likely to end up with cards at the base frequency, the cheapest EVGA GTX 980 is $459, compared to $484 for the 1266MHz version.

AMD-Perf2

There’s no evidence that AMD lied or misconstrued the GTX 980’s performance. Neither did Tech Report. Frankly, we prefer testing retail hardware when such equipment is available, but since GPU vendors tend to charge a premium for higher-clocked GPUs, it’s difficult to select any single card and declare it representative.

Amended Conclusion:

Nvidia’s overall performance in Fable Legends remains excellent, though whether Team Red or Green wins is going to depend on which type of card, specifically, you’ve chosen to purchase. The additional headroom left in many of Nvidia’s current designs is a feature, not a bug, and while it makes it more difficult to point at any single point and declare it representative of GTX 980 Ti or 980 performance, we suspect most enthusiasts appreciate the additional headroom.

The power issues that forced a near-total rewrite of this story, however, also point to the immaturity of the DirectX 12 ecosystem. Whether you favor AMD or Nvidia, it’s early days for both benchmarks and GPUs, and we wouldn’t recommend making drastic decisions around expected future DirectX 12 capability. There are still unanswered questions and unclear situations surrounding certain DirectX 12 features, like asynchronous computing on Nvidia cards, but the overall performance story from Team Red vs. Team Green is positive. The fact that a stock R9 390, at $329, outperforms a stock GTX 980 with an MSRP of $460, however, is a very nice feather in AMD’s cap.

 



Popular Pages
  • CV Resume Ahmadrezar Razian-سید احمدرضا رضیان-رزومه Resume Full name Sayed Ahmadreza Razian Nationality Iran Age 36 (Sep 1982) Website ahmadrezarazian.ir  Email ...
  • CV Resume Ahmadrezar Razian-سید احمدرضا رضیان-رزومه معرفی نام و نام خانوادگی سید احمدرضا رضیان محل اقامت ایران - اصفهان سن 33 (متولد 1361) پست الکترونیکی ahmadrezarazian@gmail.com درجات علمی...
  • Nokte feature image Nokte – نکته نرم افزار کاربردی نکته نسخه 1.0.8 (رایگان) نرم افزار نکته جهت یادداشت برداری سریع در میزکار ویندوز با قابلیت ذخیره سازی خودکار با پنل ساده و کم ح...
  • Tianchi-The Purchase and Redemption Forecasts-Big Data-Featured Tianchi-The Purchase and Redemption Forecasts 2015 Special Prize – Tianchi Golden Competition (2015)  “The Purchase and Redemption Forecasts” in Big data (Alibaba Group) Among 4868 teams. Introd...
  • Brick and Mortar Store Recommendation with Budget Constraints-Featured Tianchi-Brick and Mortar Store Recommendation with Budget Constraints Ranked 5th – Tianchi Competition (2016) “Brick and Mortar Store Recommendation with Budget Constraints” (IJCAI Socinf 2016-New York,USA)(Alibaba Group...
  • Drowning Detection by Image Processing-Featured Drowning Detection by Image Processing In this research, I design an algorithm for image processing of a swimmer in pool. This algorithm diagnostics the swimmer status. Every time graph sho...
  • 1st National Conference on Computer Games-Challenges and Opportunities 2016-Featured 1st National Conference on Computer Games-Challenges and Opportunities 2016 According to the public relations and information center of the presidency vice presidency for science and technology affairs, the University of Isfah...
  • Shangul Mangul Habeangur,3d Game,AI,Ahmadreza razian,boz,boz boze ghandi,شنگول منگول حبه انگور,بازی آموزشی کودکان,آموزش شهروندی,آموزش ترافیک,آموزش بازیافت Shangul Mangul HabeAngur Shangul Mangul HabeAngur (City of Goats) is a game for child (4-8 years). they learn how be useful in the city and respect to people. Persian n...
  • Design an algorithm to improve edges and image enhancement for under-sea color images in Persian Gulf-Featured 3rd International Conference on The Persian Gulf Oceanography 2016 Persian Gulf and Hormuz strait is one of important world geographical areas because of large oil mines and oil transportation,so it has strategic and...
  • 2nd Symposium on psychological disorders in children and adolescents 2016 2nd Symposium on psychological disorders in children and adolescents 2016 2nd Symposium on psychological disorders in children and adolescents 2016 Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery – University of Isfahan – 2 Aug 2016 - Ass...
  • MyCity-Featured My City This game is a city simulation in 3d view. Gamer must progress the city and create building for people. This game is simular the Simcity.
  • GPU vs CPU Featured CUDA Optimizing raytracing algorithm using CUDA Abstract Now, there are many codes to generate images using raytracing algorithm, which can run on CPU or GPU in single or multi-thread methods. In t...
Popular posts
Interested
About me

My name is Sayed Ahmadreza Razian and I am a graduate of the master degree in Artificial intelligence .
Click here to CV Resume page

Related topics such as image processing, machine vision, virtual reality, machine learning, data mining, and monitoring systems are my research interests, and I intend to pursue a PhD in one of these fields.

جهت نمایش صفحه معرفی و رزومه کلیک کنید

My Scientific expertise
  • Image processing
  • Machine vision
  • Machine learning
  • Pattern recognition
  • Data mining - Big Data
  • CUDA Programming
  • Game and Virtual reality

Download Nokte as Free


Coming Soon....

Greatest hits

Waiting hurts. Forgetting hurts. But not knowing which decision to take can sometimes be the most painful.

Paulo Coelho

It’s the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting.

Paulo Coelho

You are what you believe yourself to be.

Paulo Coelho

The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there’s no risk of accident for someone who’s dead.

Albert Einstein

Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.

Albert Einstein

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.

Albert Einstein

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Albert Einstein

One day you will wake up and there won’t be any more time to do the things you’ve always wanted. Do it now.

Paulo Coelho


Site by images
Recent News Posts