wow still no review. safe to say this isn't happening.
you get towers with 4x 120mm top and + rear. Like the Corsair Obsidian 900D etc. so no problem.
I don't know why Ryan Smith keeps saying tomorrow, the next day etc etc.....either hit the date you say or don't say a date at all
Will probably end up like the GTX 960 review we were promised and never got.
Perhaps AT isn't as reliant on review hits revenue as we believe they are?
Maybe they can afford to take a chill on new hardware releases now and then.
you get towers with 4x 120mm top and + rear. Like the Corsair Obsidian 900D etc. so no problem.
From what I've seen of the hose lengths on the Fury X, I don't know even that'll work out. I have a 900D and unless the hoses can be extended most of the roof ports are out of reach. Also, unless there's zero encroachment on the next fan location (very uncommon with radiators) you can't put them next to eachother in the top because it uses normal fan spacing. The lower compartment locations might be an option or the fonts if you keep the drive cages in the bottom.
I can see potentially getting all four mounted, but it wouldn't be pretty and would probably strain hoses. Rear mount, rear most top mount, front mount, and lower window side. Personally, I'd rather have my own cooling loop than deal with that mess.
No, we're not saying that. Only hw.fr reviewer who has no grasps of water cooling claims that and a few silly people on here who jump onboard the negative hype train.
Not to mention other sites find it running much cooler, even under furmark. There's no way the GPU is reaching those temps unless they disabled temp throttling (not sure how), turn off the pump & fan on the rad and let it go into meltdown.
Its a case of a reviewer who has an uncalibrated FLIR camera and the lack of common sense to question his data, against every other site & end users who claims it runs cool.
As anyone who has exp with water will tell you, the loop is cooler than the CPU/GPU/Heat-source. If your GPU is reading 60C, there's no way your loop coolant/tubes are 100C. You have to be a complete idiot to publish that data.
You get? You mean it comes with the FuryX? Because that is a north of 300.00 dollar case. Most cases I've used and purchase, have room for probably only one of those radiators at the back of the case. Two if I splurge on a higher end case. I guess it's par for the course though. Spend this much on GPUs and a 300 to 400 dollar case becomes a moot point.
Hi,
I usually stay away from answering back to such kind words; everybody is free to have an opinion about our work. However in this particular case, an answer appears to be required as it seems the exact same bullshit about our thermal tests is spreading on many forums (which I'd say is probably not a random coincidence).
First I've never written or implied in any way that the coolant reached 100 °C. That would be ridiculous. What our tests showed and what we wrote is that some components of the GPU power stage reached 104 °C. The thermal imagery shows the coolant tubes are at 54-56 °C and the internal sensor of the GPU is reporting 64 °C. All those numbers make perfect sense and the cooling system is just not doing a great job cooling down those components of the power stage, even though they're rated for such high temperatures. The conclusion is I wouldn't recommend playing with significant vmod with the Fury X as is.
Then there is no malicious testing with power virus or anything like that. In a closed case with proper ventilation, I use a 45min loop of 3DMark 11 scene 1. It pushes a similar power load as demanding games such as Anno 2070 : ~285W on the board sampled by AMD and tested here. I got my hands on a second sample for which power load was ~300W in the same tests but I didn't use if for thermal tests. Furmark for example would push the load to ~385W, but again I don’t use it for thermal tests.
Damien
Are you really talking about my IR pictures ???
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/937-8/temperatures-nuisances-sonores.html
I know how to use my IR camera (we were actually the first to introduce IR imaging in graphic cards reviews in 2008 or 2009), how to make sure my results are correct and how a closed loop works, thanks for your patronizing concerns
Some websites rush to get those results and/or use a table bench instead of a real PC case, which can explain some differences. Some IR pictures can also be misleading if taken with a cheap IR camera or if not displayed with a proper scale.
Woof, that foot in mouth. I think he's referring to these IR pictures:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/Radeon-R9-Fury-X-Test-1162693/
Which is clearly not your site. Haha. Welcome to ATF. Come for the drama, stay hopefully for the insight.
<popcorn.gif>
Words
Add Tom's to the list, they too also claimed VRM's over 100c.
Add Tom's to the list, they too also claimed VRM's over 100c.
Tom's Hardware said:We see the consequences of that conservative fan setting in our infrared temperature measurement results. During gaming, the VRMs stay reasonably cool, even though they're only covered by a small heat sink that touches a heat pipe above it. The board hits 60 °C at the slot, meaning the VRMs heat travels across the PCB under the rubberized back plate. . .
The story changes during our stress test. The water-cooling rule of thumb comes to mind right away: use one centimeter of radiator length per 10W of power. Almost 90 °C at the motherboard slot indicates that the VRM pins have passed 100 °C. This certainly isnt a great way to run the card long-term, but then again, stress tests arent an everyday usage scenario. Still, it would have been nice to see some reserves for overclocking.
Tom's reported over 100 C on the VRMs only during Furmark which AMD doesn't throttle as much as Nvidia.
I'm not concluding one way or another, just that Tom's and hardware.fr don't agree.
I find that thoses temps issues are somewhat inflated to death, it s not the GPU, neither the VRMs but still, it s a concern for some people here, nevermind that HFR measured Nvidia VRMs on a card at 126°C, i didnt read in said site that it was problematic, here we have components that are not even semiconductors at much lower temp...
Dont know for THG since i didnt read the review but with the exemples above things are clear, in HFR pic we can even see the 6 VRMs aligned at the right of the hot area, and wich are obviously at lower temp since they are cooled by a copper tube...
Well usually when we simply talk about VRM, we mean power stage as a whole, not really a specific component of the power stage. I guess it's the same for most tech medias.
I have to disagree about your analysis however. First what you think you identify as the 6 VRMs on the right of the hot area are actually just 6 batches of small capacitors with a different emissivity.
You should have a better look at the front side of the PCB and at the position of everything : http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/47/IMG0047713_1.jpg
The MOSFETs (IRF6811 and IRF6894) are actually right in the middle of the hot area.