• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

390X or 980ti - which one are you going for?

Final8y said:
No the card is not more efficient at 94c vs 74c based on Newton’s Law of Cooling, its does not say that, what it says is that it can give more performance because it can operate at 94c vs 74c based on Newton’s Law of Cooling which means for the same cooling a GPU that can operate at a higher temp can give more performance on a given arc.
Click to expand...

So are you very sure performance per watt at 74c is better then at 94c on the reference cards, as per the article
I'd like to think AMD knew what they were doing when they made it to work at 94c as part of the overall package of card and reference cooler and they felt that was its most efficient point price/performance/watt wise
 
triss said:
So are you very sure performance per watt at 74c is better then at 94c on the reference cards, as per the article
I'd like to think AMD knew what they were doing when they made it to work at 94c as part of the overall package of card and reference cooler and they felt that was its most efficient point price/performance/watt wise
Click to expand...

I never said performance per watt at 74c is better then at 94c on the reference cards because its not, Its not about performance per watt, performance per watt is about efficiency, if you cant get the performance you want at a give watt, you better make the chip able to cope with more watts and heat to get the performance you want or you wont reach the performance you want.


So if the current 290x could only operate at 74c then the max performance would be lower on the stock cooler.
 
Last edited:
You take what the 970 is now and its performance as of now, now lets say it could cope with more watts and operate at 150c just image what the stock speed could have been or if NV didnt want that all going at stock just imagine the Overclocks if people didn't mind the heat.
 
Final8y said:
I never said performance per watt at 74c is better then at 94c on the reference cards because its not, Its not about performance per watt, performance per watt is about efficiency, if you cant get the performance you want at a give watt, you better make the chip able to cope with more watts and heat to get the performance you want or you wont reach the performance you want.
Click to expand...


So if the current 290x could only operate at 74c then the max performance would be lower on the stock cooler.
Click to expand...

^^Exactly and performance per watt would be lower and the card would be less efficient Because performance per watt is about efficiency

No the card is not more efficient at 94c vs 74c based on Newton’s Law of Cooling, its does not say that, what it says is that it can give more performance because it can operate at 94c vs 74c based on Newton’s Law of Cooling which means for the same cooling a GPU that can operate at a higher temp can give more performance on a given arc
Click to expand...

The whole discussion was indeed about efficiency at 94c and what logic AMD used to say why they used 94c with there reference cooler

But now
Its not about performance per watt, performance per watt is about efficiency
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Above all have a good day/night sir/maam been interesting discussing with you
 
triss said:
^^Exactly and performance per watt would be lower and the card would be less efficient Because performance per watt is about efficiency
Click to expand...

Yes that's why it was made to cope with 94c instead of 74c because the arc is not efficient enough to give the same performance at 74c on the reference cooler, so over all performance level is greater than if it was constrained at 74c on the reference cooler, its not more efficient at 94c no claim has been made that it is, it gives more performance at 94c on the reference cooler which is the point because it can cope with more watts than if it was constrained at 74c.

On any given are Arc as performance goes up efficiency goes down, that's a given but that was not the point, but over all performance is not mutually exclusive to efficiency, you can get more performance at the expense of efficiency which is the point to why the chip has not been constrained to 74c.
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
Yes that's why it was made to cope with 94c instead of 74c because the arc is not efficient enough give to the same performance at 74c on the reference cooler, so over all performance level is greater than if it was constrained at 74c on the reference cooler, its not more efficient no claim has been made that it is.
Click to expand...

So if you water cool and keep temps under 50c, the card isn't working as well as if it was running at 94c?
 
Gregster said:
So if you water cool and keep temps under 50c, the card isn't working as well as if it was running at 94c?
Click to expand...

You are so far from understanding the point its not even funny.

You take the water cooling and have the option of OC it to a max of 94c if it had the Voltage and scaling to do so and gain more performance than the reference cooler at 94c and more performance than the given water cooling kept at 50c.
 
Last edited:
Quite excited about the 380X/390X, we know with GM200 it's more of the same. We can take a guess at what it will be like as we already have GM204. with the new AMD cards we have no idea how they are gonna perform and if they do incorporate a new memory tech how that will effect gaming etc.

Hurry and release them plz AMD !
 
Final8y said:
You are so far from understanding the point its not even funny.

You take the water cooling and have the option of OC it to a max of 94c if it had the Voltage and scaling to do so and gain more performance than the reference cooler at 94c and more performance than the given water cooling kept at 50c.
Click to expand...

That's not what you Said though. You said the card performs better at 94c than it does at 74c, so if a water cooled card runs at even 74c, are you saying the 94c card performs better?
 
Gregster said:
That's not what you Said though. You said the card performs better at 94c than it does at 74c, so if a water cooled card runs at even 74c, are you saying the 94c card performs better?
Click to expand...

No i did not, you are implying i said that.
It seems that the context and terms and the article escape you and some others, i should not have to keep spelling out because of pushing more volts to obtain higher clocks thus generating more heat (you and others were not born yesterday so i would say deliberately obtuse and being overly literal for the sake of it), if the GPU was constrained by 74c than it would not be able to get the same performance as the same chip at 94c on the same cooling because 74c means dropping the volts and clocks.

For the same given cooling on the same given arc more performances makes more heat, so the same card generating 74c of heat on the same cooling is doing less than the same card generating 94c of heat.

Unless you are trying to tell me lets say if that my water cooled GPU is working no more harder at 94c than when its at 30c.

You know why idle temps and load temps are different right.
 
Last edited:
You clearly did say that 94C is more efficient than 74C but I am not going to say it again and again, so end of subject as far as I am concerned. The bottom line is the 290X reference cooler was poor and no disguising that. They need a better cooler and I am sure they will have on the 390X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom