R9 290x Clock speeds?

[clementk]

ok so i was watching the PCper podcast. and there where talking about the R9 290x clock speeds and i never know that and just though that why does Poeple does not Talk more about this. They where testing a Reviewer sample and Store Bought and there was a big difference. as wel as something that i just feel that AMD should not have done now before i heave the word fanboy i am not fan boy i really though that the R9 290X was good card just wanted to hear what people say. So what they saw was that the R9 290x clock speed in quite was 1000 Mhz for the first 5 min and then dropped about 130 Mhz. now the point he made that i agree with it that most reviewers would test a game and then restart and test again.This would mean that the reviews would get better FPS then normal gamers just because there card have time to cool down.So what do you guys think is this fine for you or should AMD have not done this ?

[clementk]

It's just a different fan profile, AMD has already released a fix for it to match up with the older and louder fan profile of the review cards. You can also easily fix this yourself by setting your own fan profiles.

 

That being said, anybody expecting the hehashed rehashed 7970 cooler to actually be good is kinda crazy. 

there where testing with the New Fixed drivers with the fan RPM synced.

[clementk]

Links? The only tests I've seen so far have been with drivers pre fan profile fixes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdXCzTUaJI

 

they talk about r9 290x from about 9min

[clementk]

Yeah all that podcast is showing is that he got not as good of a chip on his second card? Same as how overclocking goes, some cards will output more heat at the same frequencys as another card, with AMD's new method of controlling fan speed/clock speed this will mean a lower clock at the same RPM. He could go get a third card and have it run the same fan speeds but stick on 1000Mhz constant if he wins the silicone lottery. It seems more like him bitching about getting a chip that isn't as well binned and going straight for the 'they sent reviewers better cards to look good' even though he's only used 2 290x's ever. It's not really a great argument on his behalf

its more like the card is runing at 1000mhx till its hits the 95C then drops now what happens is the first five min temps have had time to cool so now in reviews the FPS seems higher then you would get gaming for longer times .

[clementk]

Which is a result of the different binning on the chips and the second card that he got not being as good of a chip and thus outputting more heat?

the point he is making is that the card sells for 1000Mhz and he does not get it? thats why he is complaining they sould not say UP to 1000mhz and then have lower clock they should say Base clock and this is the Max.. if i had bought a R9 290X that on specs say 1000Mhz and it only runs 1000 for five mins then lower i would not be happy that why nvidia says Boost and Base clock to advertise what you get but amd only says up to 1000Mhz so on spec its look better then real performance. if you get into Overclocking thats fine if one card is performing better then other but at stock they should all run the same.

[clementk]

If he want's 1000Mhz then that's what Uber mode is for on the card, They are never supposed to reach those clocks constantly on quiet mode.

like i said just wanted to see what people said about this but yeah on uber it does stay at 1000 .

[-rascal-]

Welp, kind of the reason why a lot of us here who want a R9-290 / R9-290X are waiting for aftermarket / custom manufacturer cooler (i.e. Sapphire / XFX / ASUS / HIS) cards before dropping our money...