AMD Radeon R9 390X cooler leaked [OC3D]

[MEC-777]

I don't see how a hole in the side of the shroud proves that it is going to be watercooled. That hole could be there for any number of reasons, we don't know. Fact is that you can't just slap an AIO on a GPU without increasing the cost, those things are expensive. I don't think AMD plans to lose their price advantage over Nvidia with the next generation of cards.

AMD has a MASSIVE price advantage with the R9 295X2 over the Titan Z. Just sayin.

[nj4ck]

AMD has a MASSIVE price advantage with the R9 295X2 over the Titan Z. Just sayin.

The Titan Z is basically a joke, therefore it doesn't count. R9 390X vs whatever Nvidia card competes is what I'm worrying about.

[Brunopls]

Is that a coat for your image processing unit configurator hardware object?

[patrickjp93]

I don't see how a hole in the side of the shroud proves that it is going to be watercooled. That hole could be there for any number of reasons, we don't know. Fact is that you can't just slap an AIO on a GPU without increasing the cost, those things are expensive. I don't think AMD plans to lose their price advantage over Nvidia with the next generation of cards.

They will. AIO liquid coolers are not cheap, and Nvidia's flagship is down to $600 out of the starting gate with a huge performance gain (release drivers providing better performance means optimized ones will kick ass). Their 2nd best is basically $380 too. I don't think AMD can match it this time and keep the performance crown without significantly increasing voltage. They don't have much room to add cores, and is the 285 die is anything to go by, at most AMD can pack on ~3050 cores on their flagship, and it will barely be at 1 GHz clock rate.

[nj4ck]

They will. AIO liquid coolers are not cheap, and Nvidia's flagship is down to $600 out of the starting gate with a huge performance gain (release drivers providing better performance means optimized ones will kick ass). Their 2nd best is basically $380 too. I don't think AMD can match it this time and keep the performance crown without significantly increasing voltage. They don't have much room to add cores, and is the 285 die is anything to go by, at most AMD can pack on ~3050 cores on their flagship, and it will barely be at 1 GHz clock rate.

Again, I think its way too early to make assumptions like that, especially since there is no real AMD roadmap and we therefore have no idea what AMD is currently working on.

[patrickjp93]

Again, I think its way too early to make assumptions like that, especially since there is no real AMD roadmap and we therefore have no idea what AMD is currently working on.

We know exactly what they're working on. GCN 1.3 for the flagship, and trickle-down Tonga into reskinned cards from 380 on down. Tonga was a small power//core/clock improvement, but not on the scale Maxwell is.

 

We know they're moving to Pirate Islands with the 300s series, and there are many leaks regarding feature sets. Like I said, about 3050 cores max for the single card flagship, ~1 GHz flat, and a power hog (tonga or not) on the same level as the 290X. Approximately 15% improvement, giving them the performance crown until the 980TI drops like a ton of bricks (GM 204 has a max core count of 2560, or just under 20% more than the 980). We know it will have a hot 512-bit bus. AMD is pretty predictable about core scaling with each new release, regardless of their erratic release schedule.

[nj4ck]

We know exactly what they're working on. GCN 1.3 for the flagship, and trickle-down Tonga into reskinned cards from 380 on down. Tonga was a small power//core/clock improvement, but not on the scale Maxwell is.

 

We know they're moving to Pirate Islands with the 300s series, and there are many leaks regarding feature sets. Like I said, about 3050 cores max for the single card flagship, ~1 GHz flat, and a power hog (tonga or not) on the same level as the 290X. Approximately 15% improvement, giving them the performance crown until the 980TI drops like a ton of bricks (GM 204 has a max core count of 2560, or just under 20% more than the 980). We know it will have a hot 512-bit bus. AMD is pretty predictable about core scaling with each new release, regardless of their erratic release schedule.

Leaks... great. Anyways, you may well be right and if you are, I guess AMD will be going down the drain in the next few years and probably reduce production entirely to their APU line. Until they actually release detailed information though, everything is based on more-or-less reliable leaks and speculation.

 

Edit, btw, I disagree with Tonga being a certain power hog. The R9 285s Tonga chip has a TDP 60 watts lower than the R9 280s Tahiti core. The R9 390X being based on Tonga could potentially make it much more power efficient than the R9 290X, as far as I can tell.

[patrickjp93]

Leaks... great. Anyways, you may well be right and if you are, I guess AMD will be going down the drain in the next few years and probably reduce production entirely to their APU line. Until they actually release detailed information though, everything is based on more-or-less reliable leaks and speculation.

Edit, btw, I disagree with Tonga being a certain power hog. The R9 285s Tonga chip has a TDP 60 watts lower than the R9 280s Tahiti core. The R9 390X being based on Tonga could potentially make it much more power efficient than the R9 290X, as far as I can tell.

Less than half the core count of the 290x; and it was an improvement in power consumption, but part of that was due to less VRAM, and don't forget the 285 has a much narrower memory bus vs. the 290x and it had a slightly lower clock speed.

[nj4ck]

Less than half the core count of the 290x; and it was an improvement in power consumption, but part of that was due to less VRAM, and don't forget the 285 has a much narrower memory bus vs. the 290x and it had a slightly lower clock speed.

By how much does memory bus and VRAM effect the power consumption? The R9 285 has the same core count as the R9 280, but a 60W lower TDP. You can't be telling me that's all due to a lower memory bus and less VRAM...? I'm by no means an expert on this, but given the relatively small amount of heat output from the memory itself, I can't imagine it making that big of a difference. Its not like the 4GB 770 consumes noticably more power than the 2GB version, is it?

[patrickjp93]

By how much does memory bus and VRAM effect the power consumption? The R9 285 has the same core count as the R9 280, but a 60W lower TDP. You can't be telling me that's all due to a lower memory bus and less VRAM...? I'm by no means an expert on this, but given the relatively small amount of heat output from the memory itself, I can't imagine it making that big of a difference. Its not like the 4GB 770 consumes noticably more power than the 2GB version, is it?

TDP =/= power consumption, only heat output. Look at the reviews of power consumption. It was barely affected. More efficient hardware where less electricity is wasted, for a slightly better result. @LukaP feel free to jump in.

The memory speeds are also significantly slower on the 285 vs the 290x. It all adds up. Out of the missing 60W of heat, probably 35-40 belonged to the GPU core itself. The rest is less (and revised) memory and probably revised PCB.

[nj4ck]

TDP =/= power consumption, only heat output. Look at the reviews of power consumption. It was barely affected. More efficient hardware where less electricity is wasted, for a slightly better result. @LukaP feel free to jump in.

The memory speeds are also significantly slower on the 285 vs the 290x. It all adds up. Out of the missing 60W of heat, probably 35-40 belonged to the GPU core itself. The rest is less (and revised) memory and probably revised PCB.

Well in that case, I guess the 390X will be a huge flop.

[LukaP]

TDP =/= power consumption, only heat output. Look at the reviews of power consumption. It was barely affected. More efficient hardware where less electricity is wasted, for a slightly better result. @LukaP feel free to jump in.

The memory speeds are also significantly slower on the 285 vs the 290x. It all adds up. Out of the missing 60W of heat, probably 35-40 belonged to the GPU core itself. The rest is less (and revised) memory and probably revised PCB.

im done arguing the same people over and over again about this. if anyone wants to, they can read the thread where i did it extensively

[Bouvie_11]

I'm just fed up with the fanboyism. Can't we just have a fair and civilised discussion about a product without bashing it before it even came out. Feel like this forum has members who are a bunch of 12 year olds :mellow:

[MEC-777]

I just have to say, after watching some of the GTX 980/970 reviews today, AMD certainly has their work cut out. I sincerely hope they can bring something to the table to compete with the 980 in terms of performance, power draw and heat.

 

Seriously considering getting a 970 now instead of a used 290X... I never thought heat and power consumption would sway my decision, but it's starting to become more important - especially in a mini-ITX system. With the 970 I wouldn't have to cool it with water.

 

I defended AMD earlier in this thread and I stand by everything I said. However, if they do include AIO water coolers with their new flagship GPUs, then it better blow the 980 right out of the water to justify it.

[patrickjp93]

I just have to say, after watching some of the GTX 980/970 reviews today, AMD certainly has their work cut out. I sincerely hope they can bring something to the table to compete with the 980 in terms of performance, power draw and heat.

 

Seriously considering getting a 970 now instead of a used 290X... I never thought heat and power consumption would sway my decision, but it's starting to become more important - especially in a mini-ITX system. With the 970 I wouldn't have to cool it with water.

 

I defended AMD earlier in this thread and I stand by everything I said. However, if they do include AIO water coolers with their new flagship GPUs, then it better blow the 980 right out of the water to justify it.

And then the 980TI will drop, and then you'll feel really bad. At 20% more cores over the 980, it's going to be a beastly thing.

[Vitalius]

And then the 980TI will drop, and then you'll feel really bad. At 20% more cores over the 980, it's going to be a beastly thing.

That performs around 10-20% better than a 780. I don't see the price justification in upgrading from a 780 to a 980, even considering the concept of selling the 780 to pay for the 980. 

I don't understand why people get excited about new top tier GPUs. "*woo* 10% increase over last gen!" Whip-de-doo. Admittedly, depending on which resolution you pick, that is and isn't true of the 980, but regardless, I don't see the price justification in upgrading. Buying new when you have no GPU, yeah I understand, it's upgrading I don't.

[MEC-777]

And then the 980TI will drop, and then you'll feel really bad. At 20% more cores over the 980, it's going to be a beastly thing.

Oh man, AMD will be sweating... Literally.

[MEC-777]

That performs around 10-20% better than a 780. I don't see the price justification in upgrading from a 780 to a 980, even considering the concept of selling the 780 to pay for the 980. 

I don't understand why people get excited about new top tier GPUs. "*woo* 10% increase over last gen!" Whip-de-doo. Admittedly, depending on which resolution you pick, that is and isn't true of the 980, but regardless, I don't see the price justification in upgrading. Buying new when you have no GPU, yeah I understand, it's upgrading I don't.

For those who have 780's, it doesn't necessarily make sense to upgrade. However those who are still running 680's or older, or lower-end cards, depending on their budget and performance goals, the 980 can very well be worth the upgrade. Nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade every year or with every new generation. But it's still very interesting to see where the innovation is shifting. When you consider how much more performance the 980/970 delivers vs. how much less power they draw, it's nothing short of impressive. 

 

The 970 is killer value right now, sitting right between the 290 and 290X, yet costing less than the 290. If I were AMD, I'd be chopping about $40-50 off the 290 and 290X to help them remain competitive. 

[MilkyWhite]

Speculation much ? one thing's for sure. Cards overclock much higher on water.

[seiny]

I may be blind but does it say"aadeon"?

No it's Radeon

[Techhog]

Why should you need to put a better cooler on their card when Nvidia is doing perfectly fine? They need to fix their heat problems first.

Then you'd just complain about them going 1-2 years without a new card.

[cubercaleb]

Are AMD cards really that horrible that they need a liquid cooler to run below 90 degrees? Ohh wait, it still will run at 90 degrees because AMD sucks and they just overclock and rebrand 3 year old chips whenever they get competition.

[ViruZ_HUN]

I may be blind but does it say"aadeon"?

It says Radeon. Cant you see there is a little gap in the what you call A

[AlwaysFSX]

Then you'd just complain about them going 1-2 years without a new card.

How does that statement have anything to do with what I said?

[Techhog]

How does that statement have anything to do with what I said?

You won't be satisfied with anything they do.