My conclusion is that R9 290 series is pre-overclocked and possibly pre-overvolted as well. They are really pushing the chip hard right out of the box, just like NV pushed their GK104 chip in GTX 770. 7970 and 680 were not pushed nearly as hard so they had more headroom for post-purchase overclocking/volting.
Hawaii and AMD's Turbo just works differently than what we've seen before. It adjusts fan speed and clocks, within preset limits, to maintain a predetermined temp. You just need to get your head around that. The reference cooler is
adequate to reach the required performance levels of being competitive or faster than the GK110 chips. It isn't overvolted, or overclocked.
PCPer ran the numbers hot vs cold and surprise surprise you need 50-60% fan speed to prevent the hot run from sinking in performance.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...figurable-GPU/Cold-versus-Hot-R9-290X-Results
That would explain why the uber fan speed target is 55%.
"The Run 2 graph shows us that 20% and 30% levels are just simply not going to work on the 290X. Take a look at the green line that represents 20% - it is actually running OVER 20% the entire time, and in fact runs over 30% and hits 44% towards the end! The same is true for the 30% setting. Clearly the R9 290X is not able to maintain its base clock of 727 MHz with fan speeds under 40% and thus we now know why AMD selected that option for its "quiet" profile. Rather than lower the clocks any more than 727 MHz, AMD instead overrides the maximum fan speed setting of the driver to lower temperatures and maintain a "base" performance level."
Yes, that is exactly why AMD selected 40% for quiet mode.
And "hot" was just 5-7 minutes of play. For longer periods of time I suspect you would need to ride 60%+ continuously.
That is not how it works. Once equilibrium is attained that's where it will stay. It's not like it will stabilize for a period and then continue to increase the longer you go. Load, voltage, ambient temps, or something in the equation would have to change. Temps aren't going to rise simply because of time.
You can argue all you want that buying an aftermarket card or Arctic Accelero or water will 'fix' your problem but that means:
You are stating there is a problem without defining it. If you are talking about decreasing noise, cooler running temps, higher sustainable clocks, then a higher performance cooler can give you all of these things, just like any other GPU.
- extra cost for Accelero, water, and possibly some of the better non-ref cards
Here you are saying that a better cooler will cost more. If it was preinstalled on the reference design it wouldn't magically not make it cost more.
- extra hassle for Accelero, water installation as well as possible warranty voiding issues
If you don't want to change coolers yourself and don't want the reference design then you will have exactly the same option with Hawaii as any other card, buy one with a preinstalled aftermarket cooler.
- problems with SLI/Xfire if open air coolers are packed close together
hardware compatibility is always a criteria. Choose your hardware accordingly. Choose what works for you instead of complaining about what doesn't. If your case doesn't offer enough airflow and/or your mobo doesn't have enough spacing for crossfire, look elsewhere.
- still sitting at 95C, that can't be good for longevity no matter what AMD claims.. if not for your card then think of the waste heat being spewed into your case affecting your other components (with open-air coolers)
It's entirely possible that sitting at 95° will have absolutely no excessive adverse effect on component longevity if it's within design tolerances.
- you still have less headroom than, say, 7970 or 680 gave you. With those cards you got decent headroom even with reference cards and good cooling solutions, and better cooling gave you even more headroom. With R9 290/290X you get something that has been pre-oc/ov'd so it has almost no headroom left.. you need to crank to 60% fan just to get it to hit top stock speeds. So a card with better cooling merely gives you back a little headroom that you should have gotten in the first place.
Better cooling increases clock potential on any GPU. Again, you need to wrap your head around the way AMD's new Turbo works. Clocks and fan speed are adjusted to maintain a certain temp (95° in this example) up to a predetermined maximum (1000MHz stock 290X). That's just the way it's designed to work. You are free to not like it, but it doesn't make it bad.
I guess people who don't like messing with manual overclocks/volts might be ok with R9 290-series cards. Especially if they game with headphones. But for those of us who liked doing it ourselves, these GPUs are basically pre-oc/ov'd leaving virtually no headroom with reference cooler. Maybe you get back a few percent with good air coolers, but that's a far cry from cards like GTX 460 and HD 7950 that could oc 25%+ even with modest air coolers.
You are comparing it to cards who's clock speeds were set so they wouldn't infringe on the next level card's performance. Nothing to do with the idea of allowing more O/C'ing headroom. That was a side effect of purposely reducing performance for marketing reasons.