freEVfoldinGA
I've just finished "overclocking" what has got to be one of the worst 2070 Supers. It's the 2070 Super FTW3 Ultra+ with 10% faster memory, clocked at 15.5Ghz out of the box which I assume means they are 16Ghz Samsung chips but after seeing my results I'm not so sure. Max stable clocks are 1995Mhz on the core and 16.6Ghz on the VRAM. I've tried everything I can think of, curve editing and standard offset, voltage maxed out or left stock, fans at max and auto, etc. and this thing is just a dog. I'm comparing it to a few reviews, primarily this one where their FTW ultra non-plus is averaging stock what my max OC is, as well as user feedback from this and another forum and while I know overclocking is not guaranteed at all, this is a really disappointing result from EVGA's best 2070 Super. Most 2070 Supers I've seen have been getting somewhere around 1960Mhz-2100Mhz stable on the core, so I'm clearly on the low end of that but not the absolute worst and I had no problem accepting that as I understand that that's luck of the draw. But the VRAM that I paid extra money for different hardware that is supposed to be better, even regular 2070 Supers with 14Ghz memory are getting 15.5Ghz-16Ghz and mine with supposedly 16Ghz Samsung chips that on other 2070 Supers or 2080 Supers are getting 18.5Ghz-19Ghz. That is a tough pill to swallow and makes me wonder if EVGA is actually using the 16Ghz Samsung VRAM chips or if I assumed incorrectly.
 
I will say the cooler on the FTW ultra is very good, temps were maxing out around 63c and noise is very low, but I do wish EVGA did some sort of even mild binning so that your most expensive and "best" model doesn't end up with the absolute worst GPU on it.
 
 
edit Post restored, from filter by Cool GTX

freEVfoldinGA
I appreciate your input, and restoring my post, but at this point I'm aware that I just have to deal with a disappointing situation so I'm only looking to put my data point out there and maybe see if EVGA wants to confirm the type of RAM chips for future buyers. 

rchiwawa
+0 to core.  Any offset that yielded a gain in clock speed, despite the GPU running quite cool would result in a crash within seconds for me
 
+1000 to memory.  the memory controller could be hammered up to 75% load (most any of my games could hit it) and no frame rate regressions, artifacts, problems in a 6 hour gaming or VR session.
 
XC 2 slot fwiw.

freEVfoldinGA
I've just finished "overclocking" what has got to be one of the worst 2070 Supers. It's the  with 10% faster memory, clocked at 15.5Ghz out of the box which I assume means they are 16Ghz Samsung chips but after seeing my results I'm not so sure. Max stable clocks are 1995Mhz on the core and 16.6Ghz on the VRAM. I've tried everything I can think of, curve editing and standard offset, voltage maxed out or left stock, fans at max and auto, etc. and this thing is just a dog. I'm comparing it to a few reviews, primarily where their FTW ultra non-plus is averaging stock what my max OC is, as well as user feedback from this and another forum and while I know overclocking is not guaranteed at all, this is a really disappointing result from EVGA's best 2070 Super. Most 2070 Supers I've seen have been getting somewhere around stable on the core, so I'm clearly on the low end of that but not the absolute worst and I had no problem accepting that as I understand that that's luck of the draw. But the VRAM that I paid extra money for different hardware that is supposed to be better, even regular 2070 Supers with 14Ghz memory are getting and mine with supposedly 16Ghz Samsung chips that on other or are getting 17.6Ghz-18.4Ghz. That is a tough pill to swallow and makes me wonder if EVGA is actually using the 16Ghz Samsung VRAM chips or if I assumed incorrectly.
 
I will say the cooler on the FTW ultra is very good, temps were maxing out around 63c and noise is very low, but I do wish EVGA did some sort of even mild binning so that your most expensive and "best" model doesn't end up with the absolute worst GPU on it.
 
 
edit Post restored, from filter by Cool GTX
 
EDIT: I corrected the typical range of the 16Ghz Samsung chips, was previously 18.5-19Ghz which was incorrect math on my part.