Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Agg, Jan 6, 2017.
R9 290 air cooled, nuff said.
Its case design and video card choice.
If you buy a card with a cooler that dumps all the hot air in your case you need the right type of cooling. Without the right type of cooling even a cooler card will simply heat up the CPU and contribute to a very hot case with a hot video card.
Otherwise you should get one that exhausts it at the back of the case.
Most of the cooler designs are to just get the heat from the core and where it goes... oh well. And also trying to keep positive pressure in the case while keeping everything cool can be a pain.
One thing I just thought of with the RX version, think AMD are going to send review samples out this time?
Why are your PC's so hot? Buy a decent case with good ventilation ffs.
It's my room, I live in units which means it's small and my rooms in between our bathroom, the neighbours one and above our kitchen so basically it's an oven year round. In summer it easily gets to 35° in the morning, by the afternoon it's close to 40°, unless I run my crappy noisy aircon .
Also remember I have an aircooled 290, in saying that Ryzen stays lovely and cool, hasn't cracked 60° since getting the H100i V2 unless I run OCCT .
Ever since I cut a hole in my bedroom wall and fed the cables through to my PC on the other-side, noise, heat and general irritation has gone down immensely.
Ready for Vega... that's for sure.
Lol lets hope amd control their cards temps this time...
Very tempting to just pump the aircon into my case . No joke I'm actually sitting here sweating atm, hate living here I don't like heat lol.
Have to be honest if the top Vega pulls more than 300w I may not even get it just because the heat.
Try a Delonghi portable Aircon with watercool tech. I had an old one and it was better than any of the others. It evaporates water and air-conditions at the same time, which boosts cooling about 30-40% even in hot climates. It is not a "Evaporative Cooler".
Yeah nah they pull to much power, my window unit does a good job it's just noisy.
Anyway, getting off topic a bit.
Are you sure? Seems reasonable to me
I can't help but think back to the figures mentioned in the marketing and earlier in the thread. Sure, it's marketing, I get that, but they were boasting triangles per whatever and all the other technobabble, and the 13Tflop figure just makes me think either they're playing it safe, or something went wrong, but God knows what.
I know I've already fallen victim to the hype, and I feel like all indications so far are probably correct, but those figures just don't add up man...
When the thread goes from spec's speculation to having to buy air conditioners to keep gpu' cool you know it's an AMD thread
AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 confirmed by EEC. This list is pretty stacked.
In Vega's case.. its totally relevant.
I must admit its looking more and more like Vega is a last minute scramble to save AMD from going under.
2 more days...
Yeah I'm sure, checked them out years ago and settled on a window aircon .
Hahahaha doesn't help when you live in QLD. On a completely unrelated note, I visited Hell last week, it was cooler .
Back to Vega
Have some reportedly leaked pics.
Apparently RX Vega was "smoother" in the Budapest tour.
RedGamingTech video about "AMD refuting RX Vega pricing".
And Dragonfly beat me to the versions of Vega.
AMD has always had higher shader/compute (tflops) performance than Nvidia for the last few generations, that's why the coin miners love them. But they don't have for example the geometry performance to back it up. So a fury x is 8.6tflops and is now a tiny bit faster overall than a stock 980 ti which is 5.6 tflops despite 50% more tflops. Or an rx 480 (5.8tflops) is slightly faster than a stock gtx 1060 (4.4tflops) despite 30% more tflops. So if we ignored all the whitepapers on Vegas on improved architecture geometry performance etc, the tflops would suggest it would match up roughly with a gtx 1080 (8.9tflops).
That link on the budapest tour is interesting, filling on all the detail that wasn't there in the video. Confirms RX Vega was the faster system and the other was running a gtx 1080, and also suggests it won't beat a 1080 ti
"Even if we pitted Radeon RX Vega against the mightier GeForce 1080Ti, my money would still bet on a similar outcome: that you wouldn’t really be able to tell the difference with variable refresh rate. And I believe no gamer should ever consider buying a monitor that isn’t capable of variable refresh rate."
Sounds just like the "consumer at 4K wont notice our CPU is slower so we'll say its performance is equal" argument they came out with at Ryzen launch
Might be true. But then if not benchmarks, what does AMD marketing division suggest is used as a performance analysis?
Subjective blind 'taste' tests do nuthin in the long run, ask Pepsi