Should you roll back to pre heat-pipes days?
Why would anyone invest $70 into CPU watercooling kit, but refuse to TOLERATE free* watercooling kit on GPU? GPU takes easily twice the amount of power of CPU. It clearly is a first part of PC to be watercooled.
Anyone who has watercooled CPU and bashes GPU watercooling design should be checked by a doctor after being hit in his empty skull with a banhammer.
You say are okay with it, but people in here are acting like this is a bad step in the wrong direction and that it should not be used. How can we get improvements if people are not open to new ideas.
There are new ideas, and then there are "better" ideas. Throwing water cooling solution at something to try and solve a problem, isn't really addressing the problem. Too much heat to use a far less expensive cooling solution.
I'm all for new ideas, as long as it is a step in the right direction and I feel that water cooling, isn't one of those directions.
Now if the water cooling isn't really necessary for the GPU and it's just an extra gimmick/feature/coolness factor that the GPU manufacturer uses to differentiate their products, then that is fine. All companies should try to differentiate their products. But if it's "required", that isn't the most ideal thing.
I don't know where you guys get the idea that water cooling is required for R290X class of power use. Even the old Gigabyte Windforce design is capable of dissipating 450W and advertised as such. Anyone who has owned a 780/ti Gigabyte Ghz ed can attest it can handle massive OC with lots of vcore (to the point where 780/ti suck down 400W+ of power!).
There are new ideas, and then there are "better" ideas. Throwing water cooling solution at something to try and solve a problem, isn't really addressing the problem. Too much heat to use a far less expensive cooling solution.
I'm all for new ideas, as long as it is a step in the right direction and I feel that water cooling, isn't one of those directions.
It should be obvious that the 390X won't require liquid cooling when dual GPU cards like the Titan Z and PowerColor Devil 13 (dual 290x) are fan cooled.Now if the water cooling isn't really necessary for the GPU and it's just an extra gimmick/feature/coolness factor that the GPU manufacturer uses to differentiate their products, then that is fine. All companies should try to differentiate their products. But if it's "required", that isn't the most ideal thing.
I don't know where you guys get the idea that water cooling is required for R290X class of power use. Even the old Gigabyte Windforce design is capable of dissipating 450W and advertised as such. Anyone who has owned a 780/ti Gigabyte Ghz ed can attest it can handle massive OC with lots of vcore (to the point where 780/ti suck down 400W+ of power!).
Should you roll back to pre heat-pipes days?
Why would anyone invest $70 into CPU watercooling kit, but refuse to TOLERATE free* watercooling kit on GPU? GPU takes easily twice the amount of power of CPU. It clearly is a first part of PC to be watercooled.
Anyone who has watercooled CPU and bashes GPU watercooling design should be checked by a doctor after being hit in his empty skull with a banhammer.
If they're released with reference AIO units, you can bet your ass it's for the same reasons the FX9590 was. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's a good thing or not.
Because it's AMD that's debuting it, not Nvidia.I don't know why anyone would complain with better acoustics, temps and higher overclocking ability as a result of better heat dissipation.
There are new ideas, and then there are "better" ideas. Throwing water cooling solution at something to try and solve a problem, isn't really addressing the problem
If your water solution gives you lower temps at lower noise with a higher perf/price than Air Cooling, then you are addressing the problem.
You forgot the lower power consumption that goes along with it.
If your water solution gives you lower temps at lower noise with a higher perf/price than Air Cooling, then you are addressing the problem.
I myself an limited in what I can do, and for these card+AIO packages, I can't fit them, at all. I find the idea that I have to change my CPU cooler to now accommodate a GPU cooler a little absurd.
I am looking at getting AIO for my top (crossfire) airflow-starved 290X Lightning, which to minimize cost and have something fit, that would have to be an H100. That allows me to keep my NH-D14, and that would fit above it in my case. I can't fit one of the thicker rads, and I certainly can't use a rad like the one in the 295X2 on the rear panel, not enough space at all with the CPU cooler.
What is going on here in the Bold?
I find it very odd that people will spend over 1k on two video cards but will not dish out the money for a better case and then use that as a reason why AIO is bad.
We all know aftermarket cards will have none AIO options, why are people so quick to pick up the pitch forks and torches to bring down the AIO.
Can't read?
My case can't fit the AIO coolers that would be included with GPUs, like the one in the 295X2. It is a certain size, too large for my setup. An H100 is thin, and while it is a 240mm versus 120mm, it's thin.
Perhaps this wasn't addressed at me, but I suspect it was. I just bought the 290X's, got them both for about $650 post rebates.
When I put my system together in 2011, it was with SLI 560 Ti and an OC'd 2600K. I just upgraded my GPUs for the first time in this build.
I've also readily stated I expect there to be standard coolers released. I'm merely addressing the idea that CLC/AIO cooling is not a "natural evolution" for GPU cooling as others have stated, and spelled out why not everyone will be happy with such a cooler and need a different solution. I figured my own case would be fine, instead someone got all hot and bothered and apparently offended that I could ever let my system get into this situation. My bad, man, my bad.
but we can't keep moving up the power ladder to extract more performance.
Why not ??? there is no law to prohibit increasing the power budget of the GPUs/CPUs/APUs etc.
There are people with triple of even quad CF/SLI using 200-300W GPUs, why not a single 400W GPU ???