Gigabyte halts Radeon R9 290(X) WindForce

Yeah I agree that the Tri-X seems the best so far. I don't really feel the 50$ over MSRP for the cooler, but so far it seems to be the best of the bunch.

My mindset is usually top overclocks though. ;) Most aftermarket cards are pretty close in terms of noise levels, so I don't pay quite as much attention there. Although I understand GB had some slipups with the 280X in that respect.

But with that in mind, I agree the Tri-X looks like the best bet so far out of all 3. I'd like to see reviews of the MSI gamer model as well, hopefully some websites will get some tests up on that stat. The 780ti gamer looked really nice in terms of noise, i'd expect the same with the 290X MSI gamer card.
 
Sapphire is AMDs biggest partner as well, so you have a better chance of getting a well binned chip.
 
there is nothing wrong with the Gigabyte GV-R929XOC-4GD WINDFORCE 3X as I have one and its stable and hashes well.
 
Reference sapphire 290x thinking about getting the windforce 290x for better cooling? Any opinions?
 
I bought a gb r9 290 oc yesterday. For now it is flawless. Hynix memmory, 82.7% asics quality, perfectly silent and very cool for a 290 card, though it seems tri - x is a little bit cooler.

Some experiments with valley and heaven - 15 to 30 minutes loops:
Auto fan profile and stock clocks:
Core - 72 degrees;
Vrm1 - 74 degrees;
Vrm2 - 63 degrees.

Auto fan, 100mV. + and 1150/1500MHz:
Core - 80;
Vrm1 - 92;
Vrm2 - 67.
This was a little disapointing but the next one...

65 - 70% fan profile, 100mV. + and 1100/1500Mhz:
Core - 75;
VRM1 - 78;
VRM2 - 64.

So tri-x run a little bit cooler but these scores are way better than any reference 290. ;)
 
Belkov said:
Auto fan, 100mV. + and 1150/1500MHz:
Core - 80;
Vrm1 - 92;
Vrm2 - 67.
This was a little disapointing but the next one...

65 - 70% fan profile, 100mV. + and 1100/1500Mhz:
Core - 75;
VRM1 - 78;
VRM2 - 64.

So tri-x run a little bit cooler but these scores are way better than any reference 290. ;)
Click to expand...
Both of those look fine to me, honestly. I'd run the 1150 core speed and just increase the fan speed to cool the VRMs better.
 
O, no, you misunderstood me. The clocks are not so relevant. In both cases the voltages are equal. I just tested for temps. Even the higher clock speed was set by mistake... :) I wanted in both case to set 1100MHz for the core. :)
And for now i don't need to clock the card because i'm using 1980x1080 monitor... :)
My point is that WF3 is very nice cooler. I love it on my old 7950, and i love it on my new 290... :)
By the way i read something about rev.1 of these cards - that they have a lot of issues. But mine is rev.1 and for now i have no problems with it. :)
 
Not really. I had a 7950 with 58.4% and 7950 with 78.6%.
The one with higher score could be clocked way better but ran hotter. In my opinion the middle is the best.
I sold the one with higher asics, because i needed cooler card - i need to clock a vga very rare...
So the higher is the asics, the higher can be clocked the card, but it run hotter, because the "leakage" is lesser.

By the way i must apologize for my bad english - i don't practice it enough now a days... ;)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
ASICs quality is very miss-leading, lower asic % = lower leakage = better card
Click to expand...

ASIC quality is completely misleading since it is assigning a percentage to a specific register file without understanding what it is.

Any sort of "ASIC quality" also gets thrown out the window with features like GPU Boost 2.0 and PowerTune 2.0 bringing about new binning techniques.
 
I'm pretty sure AMD came out and said that ASIC % is meaningless but it's fun to speculate :)
 
What? I know there was a revision from press to retail version but they already changed it again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top