AMD Radeon R9 290X with Hawaii GPU pictured, has 512-bit 4GB Memory

eddyr · 25 Oct 2013 at 12:09

drunkenmaster said:
People banging on about the cooler being poor because the chip runs hotter than a competitor is nonsense, without attaching the heatsink to a 780gtx and comparing people are literally talking rubbish.

This I would actually like to see. Awakward to do but maybe there are a few brave individuals out there?

Suarez7 · 25 Oct 2013 at 12:14

That's a rather stupid point tbh, the whole reason people are complaining about it is the reference coolers should be better made like the nvidia ones are, besides I doubt the heatsinks would fit on the other card.

I've said time and time again the whole temperature thing is people just attacking the card because it performs well, AMD haven't held the card back. If furmark didn't throttle nvidia cards you could bet your house on their reference cards hitting about 90c as well.

teppic · 25 Oct 2013 at 12:17

It clearly is a rubbish cooler, you only need to glance at it to see that. But with an excellent cooler, AMD could still allow a target of 95C if that meant higher performance and it was safe to do.

What's more likely is that the decent coolers will drop the temps to the usual (60-70C) for the same performance, and probably give a bit more headroom for overclocking as a result.

eddyr · 25 Oct 2013 at 12:23

Suarez7 said:
That's a rather stupid point tbh, the whole reason people are complaining about it is the reference coolers should be better made like the nvidia ones are, besides I doubt the heatsinks would fit on the other card.

I've said time and time again the whole temperature thing is people just attacking the card because it performs well, AMD haven't held the card back. If furmark didn't throttle nvidia cards you could bet your house on their reference cards hitting about 90c as well.

Build quality/aesthetics of the cooler is beside the point to his point, which is about how good the cooler is or isnt. The AMD ref cooler is will have been designed for high static pressure to get through I expect a very high fin density, with a fan that goes to 11. Some assumption there but on that it is designed for cooling performance. The Titan/780 cooler possibly has an easier job to do and a compromise is reached reached with perf/noise that still allows it to appear to "perfom" better.

wolvers · 25 Oct 2013 at 13:13

The cooler itself probably isn't that much worse than the Nvidia ones in terms of cooling power, it's just that clearly the 290x core is less efficient than the 780 and Titan cores which is evident from the power consumption (and exaggerated by the throttling on Nvidia cards). The 290x cooler inevitably has to work harder as it has more heat to dissipate.

This is what DM is saying, and he's right. Without bolting a 780's cooler on a 290x, or vice-versa, there's no way of knowing for sure. Saying 'it looks rubbish so it must be' is idiotic, as is assuming that the Nvidia ones are amazeballs because they look well made and the cards run a little cooler.

JBod · 25 Oct 2013 at 13:24

wolvers said:
The cooler itself probably isn't that much worse than the Nvidia ones in terms of cooling power, it's just that clearly the 290x core is less efficient than the 780 and Titan cores which is evident from the power consumption (and exaggerated by the throttling on Nvidia cards). The 290x cooler inevitably has to work harder as it has more heat to dissipate.

This is what DM is saying, and he's right. Without bolting a 780s cooler on a 290x, or vice-versa, there's no way of knowing for sure. Saying 'it looks rubbish so it must be' is idiotic, as is assuming that the Nvidia ones are amazeballs because they look well made and the cards run a little cooler.

Well you pay more for the NVidia cards, you'd hope you'd get a better cooler.

I am sure if AMD included an amazing cooler and charged £30+ per unit people would be complaining about the price.

Rezident · 25 Oct 2013 at 13:24

It's a vapor chamber cooler isn't it? Thought they were supposed to be decent. This one obviously has a lot of heat to deal with in the first place. If it's fine with 95 then it's fine.

eddyr · 25 Oct 2013 at 13:26

wolvers said:
The cooler itself probably isn't that much worse than the Nvidia ones in terms of cooling power, it's just that clearly the 290x core is less efficient than the 780 and Titan cores which is evident from the power consumption (and exaggerated by the throttling on Nvidia cards). The 290x cooler inevitably has to work harder as it has more heat to dissipate.

This is what DM is saying, and he's right. Without bolting a 780s cooler on a 290x, or vice-versa, there's no way of knowing for sure. Saying 'it looks rubbish so it must be' is idiotic, as is assuming that the Nvidia ones are amazeballs because they look well made and the cards run a little cooler.

Funny thing is power consumption isnt helped by the higher thermal target when it's going full pelt for peak perf. Drop some degrees off and it will get a bit better.

Jordan777 · 25 Oct 2013 at 13:36

Will all the 290x models be in stock for BF4 realise on the 29th ??

wolvers · 25 Oct 2013 at 15:46

eddyr said:
Funny thing is power consumption isnt helped by the higher thermal target when it's going full pelt for peak perf. Drop some degrees off and it will get a bit better.

This is true, and an interesting point, but I would hazard a guess that it has less of an impact. Someone should do a test of power consumption on a card at various core temps, I'd be interested to see that data.

Efficiency appears to me to be the root of the 290x high running temps though. Gibbo has already said that dropping the core voltage on a 290x by just 25mv, and therefore reducing power consumption and improving efficiency, reduces temps by 5degC.

Avenged7Fold · 25 Oct 2013 at 15:54

Whether you get this card or not, it definitely has shook the market up a little bit. Although we are still waiting on Nvidia to slash prices, i doubt OCUK would be offering the 7990 at sub £400 and free delivery, if the 290x hadn't of released.

Plenty of good price/performance choices at a range of price brackets!

~>Dg<~ · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:02

Avenged7Fold said:
Whether you get this card or not, it definitely has shook the market up a little bit. Although we are still waiting on Nvidia to slash prices, i doubt OCUK would be offering the 7990 at sub £400 and free delivery, if the 290x hadn't of released.

Plenty of good price/performance choices at a range of price brackets!

if they just brought 10,000 new 290s they need to shift them

Jakus · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:35

wolvers said:
This is true, and an interesting point, but I would hazard a guess that it has less of an impact. Someone should do a test of power consumption on a card at various core temps, I'd be interested to see that data.

Efficiency appears to me to be the root of the 290x high running temps though. Gibbo has already said that dropping the core voltage on a 290x by just 25mv, and therefore reducing power consumption and improving efficiency, reduces temps by 5degC.

Pretty clear they have pushed this thing hard to get the numbers, voltage and clocks will be affecting how much heat has to be dissipated. Quite sure there would be a happy medium in there if you had a play with it.

It will be interesting to see how users respond after they have had the cards a few days.

Gerard · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:49

teppic said:
It clearly is a rubbish cooler, you only need to glance at it to see that.

And would you have reached this conclusion not knowing temps beforehand? I doubt it. That statement is based on nothing but aesthetics, if it had been shiny you'd likely have had a different opinion.

teppic · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:51

Gerard said:
And would you have reached this conclusion not knowing temps beforehand? I doubt it. That statement is based on nothing but aesthetics, if it had been shiny you'd likely have had a different opinion.

Not quite, no.

Gerard · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:54

teppic said:
Not quite, no.

So tell me how you reached the conclusion that "It clearly is a rubbish cooler, you only need to glance at it to see that"? Which means you're basing your assumptions on how it looks and nothing else.

Uncle Petey · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:56

Are you saying it isn't a rubbish cooler, Gerard?

teppic · 25 Oct 2013 at 16:57

Gerard said:
So tell me how you reached the conclusion that "It clearly is a rubbish cooler, you only need to glance at it to see that"? Which means you're basing your assumptions on how it looks and nothing else.

I based it on a lot of things, not one single comment in a single post you've decided to interpret that way.

Scougar · 25 Oct 2013 at 17:03

Gerard said:
So tell me how you reached the conclusion that "It clearly is a rubbish cooler, you only need to glance at it to see that"? Which means you're basing your assumptions on how it looks and nothing else.

Given that it's pretty much the same cooler as the 7970?

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Gallery/296009,amd-radeon-hd-7970-reference-disassembly-guide.aspx/24

Not exactly the best design for cooling on the planet. It's a cheaply made cooler.

Gerard · 25 Oct 2013 at 17:05

Uncle Petey said:
Are you saying it isn't a rubbish cooler, Gerard?

Suppose it depends on how intrusive it is while playing, amd cards reaching 90c+ isn't exactly anything new, my cards routinely get to 90c+ as did my old x1900 cards. They definitely need to try and come up with something better in the future, its one area they need to improve and it seems to be the last area they try to improve.

I'm just wondering how someone would have the clairvoyance needed to reach the conclusion that its a "rubbish cooler" just by looking at it. Take the shroud off the titan cooler and the shroud off this and side by side they'd more than likely look pretty similar, just seems like he's regurgitating TTL's 15+ minutes about it looking cheap and basing it off that.