Listing Update (Cooler Discussion)...As it relates to these higher end EVGA (NVIDIA) 10 Series graphics cards, the early factory releases did not include thermal pads in all the ideal locations to take full advantage of their advanced cooler design. The official word from EVGA was a VBIOS update increasing the fan curve (speed) would solve the problem and a thermal pad upgrade kit would be available. The latter was considered optional by the company, but I prefer the thermal pad upgrade kit as a better solution (just my opinion). Unfortunately, these kits are no longer available for those that already have one of these EVGA graphics cards without the additional thermal pads. I've had a lot of these graphics cards pass through my hands over the years, so I have become familiar with each of the thermal pad upgrade kits on the affected EVGA models, including this offering. So as part of my refurbishing process (discussed in more detail below), I will add thermal pads where necessary to effectively upgrade each one of these graphics cards to ideal factory cooling specifications. Now I don't have the darker colored thermal pads that EVGA used with their upgrade kits, but I know the exact dimensions of these thermal pads, so my thermal pad upgrades are in line with factory specifications.

Listing Update (Stock vs. Overclocked)...EVGA released two versions of this GTX 1070 graphics card. There was the FTW model and FTW DT model. These cards were identical with the exception of their factory clock speeds. In short, the FTW model was the factory overclocked version of this graphics card, while the FTW DT (De-Tuned) version was factory clocked to NVIDIA stock speeds. Either model can still be manually overclocked, but please keep in mind the FTW model was factory overclocked out of the box. Finally, and just to confirm, this offering is for the factory overclocked version of this graphics card.

Original Listing...
This offering is for a used EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 FTW GAMING graphics card with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and their advanced ACX 3.0 (oversized dual-fan/heatsink) cooler. The "FTW" acronym represents "For The Win" labeling, which is reserved for EVGA's top-end models (and this offering lives up to that billing. In short, this graphics is way overbuilt for a GTX 1070. For example, the stock power delivery design for a GTX 1070 is a 4 (graphics) + 1 (memory) phase, while this offering is a 10 (graphics) + 2 (memory) phase. So this offering is spec'd with more than twice the power delivery requirements needed to adequately run a GTX 1070. Additionally, "ACX" is an acronym for "Active Cooling Xtreme" and the "3.0" reference is an indicator that this is EVGA's third generation cooler. I should also mention that not all ACX 3.0 coolers are created equal. As an example, this "FTW" cooler is larger and superior to the ACX 3.0 cooler on EVGA's little brother GTX 1070 "SC GAMING" model. This is not to say the latter is a bad cooler, because its not, and more than adequate for a GTX 1070, but this "FTW" cooler is just bigger and better. Not surprisingly, the overall build quality of these top-end EVGA graphics cards is also very respectable. Although, please keep in mind this "quality" means that it's big and heavy, weighing nearly 2 1/2 lbs. The fan shroud is mostly plastic, with some metal accents, but it's the metal plating that is impressive. There is an inner metal plate and an outer metal back plate that support the build quality comments, while also helping with heat dissipation and limiting GPU (PCB) sag. Finally, I should mention the generous LED lighting that "lights up" most of the fan shroud. According to EVGA, this is RGB lighting that is controllable with their software.

The graphics card incorporates GeForce 10 Series technology (Pascal architecture) released by NVIDIA in 2016. So it's an older graphics card and should not be considered an equivalent to many of today's newer and more expensive offerings. Still, at the time of its release, many in the industry hailed the GeForce 10 Series as more than just a refresh of the formidable GeForce 900 Series (Maxwell architecture). The GeForce 10 Series offered meaningful performance improvements not often experienced between a single generation. For this reason, the Pascal architecture holds up fairly well to newer GeForce 16 Series (Turing architecture) graphics cards. For example, this GTX 1070, with a respectable 8 GB of RAM, is going to be more powerful than a newer model GTX 1660 and comparable to a GTX 1660 Super/Ti (all of which have 6 GB of RAM). Continuing this analysis, the RTX 2060 (with the same Turing architecture and first generation ray tracing) will perform slightly better than this graphics card (with the original launch of this model also only having 6 GB or RAM). Looking ahead to the GeForce 30 Series technology (Ampere architecture) released by NVIDIA in 2022, the entry-level RTX 3050 will also be slightly faster than this offering (although quite possibly within the margin of error, depending on the application or game).

Notwithstanding the architecture discussion, this graphics card is still a "value-play" relative to newer and more expensive models. Although, for those that enjoy gaming in their spare time, this GPU is still capable (especially at "1080p"). Newer big-budget ("Triple-A" or "AAA") titles may need to be played at lower settings, but just about everything else should be playable at higher details (for a better experience).

However, before I offer any of my graphics cards for sale, I thoroughly inspect and clean them (and perform minor repairs when necessary). More specifically (and as it relates to this particular offering), I carefully disassembled this graphics card so I could inspect the PCB, heat-sink, fans and fan shroud. This allowed me to clean these component pieces with high pressure air and apply new thermal paste on the heat spreader that covers the GPU die. I also inspected the thermal pads and noted they were in good shape, so there was no need to replace them. Although, please refer to the "Listing Update (Cooler Discussion)" above for more details concerning thermal pads. Lastly, the fans still spin like new, which I have come to expect with EVGA fans, as they seem to be among the best in terms of longevity.

Once I have completed the refurbishing of the graphics card, I then install it in a new computer with updated drivers for stress testing. This particular graphics card was briefly installed in a newly built Ryzen 7 system with 16 GB of DDR4 memory, 1 TB of SSD storage, a 600 watt bronze rated power supply and a mid-tower case with good air flow. 

For those that are interested in the details of my stress testing approach, I load the following freeware programs: 3DMark Demo, GPU-Z, FurMark, HWMonitor, Unigine Heaven and Superposition. Some of these programs help to identify the graphics card and monitor it's performance, while others attempt to stress it. More specifically, here is my approach to stressing the graphics card to give me some assurances that it will function according to manufacturers specifications. First, I run GPU-Z and HWMonitor to identify and monitor the graphics card when idle and under heavy load. Then I run Unigine Heaven for maybe 30 minutes to an hour and include a few benchmark runs during this time. I follow this up with 3DMark Demo and choose the Time Spy and Fire Strike programs, because they both have a dedicated graphics test. Next, I run the Unigine Superposition benchmark maybe a handful of times. Finally, I run FurMark for maybe another 20-30 minutes (or until temperatures appear to level off). It's been my experience that if one of my used graphics cards is able to make it through this battery of graphics intensive stress tests without any issues, then it is ready for service.

• Unigine (two runs at high detail):
  • Heaven: 4909 (194.9 fps) / 4911 (194.9 fps)
  • Superposition: 9485 (70.9 fps) / 9486 (71.0 fps)

• 3DMark Demo
  • Time Spy (two runs):
    • First: 6405 (Graphics: 6231 / Processor: 7618)
    • Second: 6397 (Graphics: 6220 / Processor: 7628)

  • Fire Strike (two runs):
    • First: 16301 (Graphics: 18832 / Processor: 18120 / Combined: 7552)
    • Second: 16321 (Graphics: 18859 / Processor: 18075 / Combined: 7576)

Having said the above, I thought it might also be helpful if I shared a specifications sheet of sorts that provides more details....

• GPU Series / Model: NVIDIA GeForce 10 Series / GTX 1070

• Clock Speed: 1607 MHz (Base) and 1797 (Boost)

• Processor Cores: 1920 CUDA Cores

• Memory Size / Type:  8 GBs of GDDR5

• Memory Interface / Effective Clock: 256-bit running at 8 Gbps (or 8008 MHz)

• Video Ports: x1 HDMI, x3 DisplayPort and x1 DVI-D (all of which have been tested and work fine)

• Cooler:  ACX 3.0 (dual-fan/heatsink) design

• Power: 8-pin + 8-pin (port) and research indicates this card will draw 200+ watts of power under heavy load (and the recommended minimum power supply is 500 watts). FYI Note: a PCI Express slot can supply 75 watts of power, a 6-pin connector another 75 watts and an 8-pin connector an additional 150 watts.

• Size (L x W): 10.50" x 5.07" and a footprint that covers two slots.

• Weight: 2 lb 7 oz

• Other Notes: Please do not try to compare the processor cores and the related core clock speeds for AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards. Their core processing architectures are different, so their specifications are not comparable. More specifically, the AMD Stream Processors are smaller and incorporate a simpler design relative to NVIDIA CUDA cores (that are larger and more complex). In other words, more AMD Stream Processors compared to NVIDIA CUDA cores does not necessarily equate to a faster graphics card processor. In addition, the AMD Stream Processors will run at a lower clock speed (measured in MHz) compared to NVIDIA CUDA cores, and this does not necessarily translate to a slower graphics card processor. So again, these processor specifications are just not comparable. Now memory specifications, etc., are generally comparable.