Spin Off: AT's Testing Methods & Uber Mode

[GaiaHunter]

I just shelled out for a Gigabyte Radeon R9 290X and an Accelero Xtreme III. Should I be concerned about this issue severely hampering the performance of my new R9 290X?

You shouldn't be affected at all.

 

[wand3r3r]

Yeah, AMD has such an advanced turbo mode, that you lose up to 20% due to throttling :awe:

NVidia GPU boost 2.0 is so superior, it's not even funny.

Why don't you stick to the question at hand? :thumbsdown:

What are the standards that a review should be conducted with? It's not an AMD vs. NV question, it's a flat review policy.

 

[bononos]

......
Therefore it seems odd that for 780 Ti review the analysis portion regarding 290X comparison only covered Quiet mode only.

Additionally in the conclusion of 780 Ti review :

quote "...GTX 780 Ti still has other advantages – power and noise in particular..."

This seems to suggest the conclusion was based on comparison between 290X Uber mode vs 780 Ti instead of the 290X Quiet mode - since from what I can observe within the provided data, the power and noise levels between 290X Quiet mode vs 780 Ti were not "particular" enough to warrant such notable advantage toward 780 Ti.

This seems relevant enough to note since if one were to strictly keep the analysis focused on the "default" (quiet) mode for 290X, it should apply also to power and temp conclusion as well as any performance analysis.
.......

Was the review comparing the noise levels of 290x uber or quiet vs 780ti?

The noise levels on Crysis3 for the 780ti/290x quiet (51.7, 53.3) is a 1.6db difference, and I'm wondering myself if that a significant enough advantage to the 780ti. The furmark score is 1db advantage for the 780ti.

I don't like the way things are going with uber mode and the 94C max temp. And the 780ti max temps is also creeping north of 80C. I'm wondering if the lifespan of products are being shortened in this round of minor tweaks and rebadging.

 

[Carfax83]

AMD's new turbo is obviously more advanced to any technically competent observer in terms of using as much available headroom as possible. Whether or not it's being used and marketed in a way that benefits the consumer is of course hotly contested. Before the 290X launch AMD made a fuss about deterministic vs. non-deterministic boost, and although their stance was completely PR driven they had some valid points. At the very least, AMD deserves to be called out for the hypocrisy of it all.

When you start at such a low clock speed as 662, it's easy to be impressed by the 290 if you're not an astute technically competent observer. :sneaky:

However, while the 290 will boost a higher percentage gain, it doesn't offer the kind of flexibility you see with GPU boost 2.0 in terms of not only clock speed, but fan speed as well.

The GTX 780 Ti will boost ABOVE it's normal boost clock speed.. In the review, it had a max boost of 1020 (regular boost is 928). With a better cooler, I wouldn't be surprised if went all the way to 1100.

And all of this is done with less noise than the AMD card, which is basically stuck at 47%. Any lower, and it begins to throttle..

Now you can argue that a AIB cooler will solve this issue, and it may. But, after reading more reviews, I don't think the reference cooler is as bad as people are saying. It just has to remove a lot more heat, as the 290 series is designed to run up to 95c..

 

[Will Robinson]

Well,first off I'd like to say thanks for the Big Boss contributing to this thread and making it obvious by his tone that he appreciates all the back and forth that goes on here.
That's a mark of respect that probably isn't always deserved and speaks highly of his character.:thumbsup:
Having people roll their eyes as if to suggest AMD gets a "freebie" on this issue is obviously foolish.
You can well imagine how AMD fans here felt about the GTX460 OC test a few years ago so it cuts both ways.
If the increase in fan speed is allowing clocks to auto adjust higher then really the only way to stop manufacturers trying to game the tests with lots of "Uber" modes etc is to decide on a decibel point we can all live with as the final arbiter of how high a fan can spool up.
Once noise levels go past a comfortable level for gaming speakers in your room there is a cutoff point...then there could be a final level that relates to wearing headphones as the upper limit.
Suggestions on alternatives is what he has just asked for...let see if some of you bright fellows can come up with some better ones than my hastily thought through idea.

 

[Carfax83]

The 780 Ti runs cooler because of the better cooler not because it consumes significantly less power.

In fact a 290X with a better cooler will consume less power than the reference 290X.

I think you are forgetting that the 290 was designed to run at a high thermal threshold. In the temperature tests, it was consistently pegged at 94c.

You can't blame everything on the reference cooler. The 290 runs hotter period, because it was designed to.. Kepler has a much lower thermal threshold..

 

[BoFox]

So I've got some thoughts here, and perhaps we'll turn these into a post on the main site but I wanted to get in this thread as you guys are honestly the source/inspiration for any such post.

Let's start with why we want to define a clear framework for how general performance/power/sound testing goes. Not only does it allow for fair comparisons between products, it also helps us deal with the inevitable situation where a manufacturer submits a ringer for review (e.g. factory overclocked card). I don't think there's much argument against this point - we all want a level playing field.

Similarly, it should be obvious why we'd want to include in such a framework the idea of testing a card at default settings. Having a strict policy there prevents a situation where AMD/Intel/NVIDIA show up and say hey we're selling the card in configuration x because of yields/experience/someothervalidreason, but it's really quite awesome and can run in configuration x+50% and that's how you should test it and btw we rule the world if you test it like that. This makes a lot of sense particularly when talking about encouraging factory overclocked comparisons.

The close relationship between fan speed and performance sort of throws a wrench in all of this. When Intel first started introducing aggressive turbo modes back in Lynnfield I was worried that it would completely corrupt our ability to reliably test CPUs. It turns out that wasn't the case. With graphics however the situation is a bit different, and with the 290/290X we're beginning to get a feel for exactly why that is.

I originally assumed the reason this was a problem now (and is going to be in the future) is because we're stuck on 28nm trying to get more performance without a good process tech solution until 14/16nm FinFET in 2015. Now I'm feeling like this is just going to be a part of the reality going forward, so we need a real solution.

AMD's Uber mode in my eyes isn't the same as a factory overclocked card. At the same time, it's not the same as what we've done in the past - which is test a totally stock configuration (reference clocks and fan speed). I personally believe in the whole living document philosophy when it comes to things like constitutions or review policies, but here's where we can get into trouble. In the case of the 290X, AMD has two modes and you can make a good argument for why you should test both. Let's now take it one step further: what happens if NVIDIA shows up next round with 3 modes? Do we test all 3? Which modes do we then compare against AMD modes, particularly if they only line up along one vector (e.g. performance or acoustics, not both). What if AMD responds the next round with 4 modes, etc... It can quickly get out of hand.

What I'd like to do here is define a good policy for what to do if this turns into a fan speed arms race. Dealing with the 290X is simple: Ryan tested both quiet and uber modes, and I can totally appreciate the argument for including analysis based on both. What Ryan is concerned about is the future. This isn't a matter of him being lazy (me being the person he reports to, I can tell you that's definitely not the case - he's kept up an insane work schedule over these past several weeks in order to get everything done as best as possible. The launches aren't done yet for the year, add in short NDA windows, issues with cards/drivers and of course any travel and the pace you have to keep in order to put out these reviews is insane). The precedent we set here today will directly impact what manufacturers attempt to do with their reviews programs in the future. The safe bet is to stick with testing in default configurations. I am (and assuming Ryan is too) more than willing to expand/change/redefine that, but the question is how? Let's look beyond the present 290X situation and think about what happens next. If acoustics and performance become even more tightly coupled in future GPU designs, and multiple optimization points exist for each card (with 1 default setting obviously) how should we deal with that going forward? If things get crazy, we could be in a situation where there would even have to be a tradeoff in terms of review depth vs. card configuration combinations. E.g. would you be willing to give up a resolution setting across all games tested in order to get another operating mode included? What does this do to the complexity of graphs?

I don't know that I've got the answer/a solution here, but this is the discussion I'd love to have.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a discussion that we might take to the main site at some point. We felt like we owed it to you guys to start it here given the time/effort you guys have put into it already. We're here to listen and will obviously take your input into account (e.g. the 290 fan noise update was a direct result of your feedback). All that I'd ask is please be respectful of Ryan in your discussions of his work. He really puts a ton of time and effort into this stuff and takes all of your feedback very seriously. Obviously you're free to post/say whatever (as long as it doesn't violate our ToS), but I've always been a fan of the golden rule 🙂

Thank you all for reading the site and for caring enough to engage in hundreds of comments on the forums and on the site itself. I'm off to bed for now but I'll check back tomorrow.

Take care,
Anand

Nice to hear from you! This is why NV's temperature-based GPU Boost 2.0 concerned me when Titan launched, because I knew AMD would follow suit, and that it would be the dawn of a more complicated age for reviewers (ensuring that the cards are properly warmed up for benchmark runs in order to represent sustained gaming performance).

But the kicker was that AMD had to throw in two switch modes à la HD 6990 on top of that, with quiet mode exploiting cold benchmark runs all that much more.

Not only does it make the task more difficult for reviewers, this kind of complexity also makes it more difficult for the rest of us to get a clear gauge on just how fast the video card should be rated at overall, according to official specifications on the vendor's website.

Perhaps the overall "sweet" spot for the 290X is with the fan set at around 45% speed, not 55% as in Uber mode or 40% in quiet mode. I guess that could be a good resolve for reviewers wishing to free up some time for benching additional resolutions, etc.. (set it at quite mode, but crank up the fan speed to somewhere in between the 2 modes) if things do continue getting more complicated down that path with GPUs in the future.

I am just hoping that next time, AMD will realize the importance of allowing aftermaket cooling solutions at the same time at launch - providing them to reviewers as well. I loved how there was an exhaust option on some cards, like EVGA GTX 460's - choices make people happy.

There just needs to be a clear reference point for reviewers to be able to clearly present the conclusion without things getting too hairy, in a mess. Those buying reference exhaust coolers could simply lower the fan speed themselves, or put up with the noise. Perhaps AMD just responded too drastically to how they handled 7970GE reviews with noisy reference coolers that were ditched at the last minute for aftermarket-only solutions, but I still feel that somewhere in between, offering both rather than resorting to HD 6990-like options would have been a much more amicable solution for most of us here.

 

[blackened23]

How about you raise the fan speed on the 780 Ti so that it gets maximum boost clock speed at all times with no down clocking?

That's basically what "uber mode" is on the 290x..

Uber mode and GPU boost 2.0 are in no way comparable, anyone suggesting otherwise is simply to obfuscate the facts - GPU Boost 2.0 does not throttle more than 1-2 bins after 4-5 hours of "warmed up" use in my experience, while here we're seeing the 290X throttle by 300mhz.

Summary:

1)GPU boost usually never throttles, but if it does, will be 1-2 bins (13-26 mhz)
2)AMD's powertune throttles by 300 freaking mhz during quiet mode, and consisntelty does this.
3)GPU boost 2.0 is a guaranteed speed with every Kepler boosting well PAST the guaranteed speed out of box.
4)AMD powertune boost is a "holy grail" speed that will only be hit if you use an unnecessarily high fan speed.

I'm sorry, but anyone suggesting that the throttling situation on these cards is anywhere near similar is basically lying through their teeth. Kepler has variance, but it isn't 20% variance. This makes it ALL THE MORE CLEAR why AMD not improving their shroud design was an utter design failure - their GPU with powertune clearly ties cooling versatality with performance, therefore it REQUIRES good cooling/acoustics to operate effectively. Having to compromise between noise and throttling by 300mhz is pure garbage. Period. You people as consumers should demand better than this, instead of believing that AMD can do no wrong.

 

[blackened23]

Why don't you stick to the question at hand? :thumbsdown:

What are the standards that a review should be conducted with? It's not an AMD vs. NV question, it's a flat review policy.

How about my standard as a consumer? You and I both know that the typical reader for GPU reviews look at FPS charts and nothing but. Seeing uber mode numbers without knowing the context behind it will lead folks to buy a GPU and not understanding that they lose 20-25% performance for using a quiet mode fan profile. This is nonsense for a product to have such a deficiency. NONSENSE. You guys need to stop defending AMD on this crap and demand a better product. This BIOS switch SHOULD NOT EXIST. It should have a shroud that doesn't necessitate a noise versus throttling compromise. Period.

If AMD wants the 290X to be benchmarked in uber mode by every review website, they should make 55% fan the default speed with no quiet mode option. OR, they should put a label on their cards warning consumers that they lose 20-25% performance by using any sort of quiet mode - that's what really annoys me about this shroud. Noise is part of it, but with the prior generation ATI Cards you could easily fix this with custom fan profiles. With the 290X? Sorry you're screwed, you want a quiet card - you lose 20% performance.

 

[Carfax83]

Lol? The 290 boosts 43% with a crappy reference cooler while the 780 Ti boosts 17% with the Titan reference cooler.

See my reply to HurleyBird. The 290 has a higher percentage gain from boost, but look how high it's thermal threshold is?

95c, of which it manages to consistently approach.

In light of that, the reference cooler doesn't look so crappy now does it, as it's having to deal with a lot more heat than the Titan cooler..

With such a high temperature threshold which is a result of the higher TDP, I'm actually skeptical that the AIB coolers will be capable of fully mitigating the heat problem.

 

[Will Robinson]

I'm sorry, but anyone suggesting that the throttling situation on these cards is anywhere near similar is basically lying through their teeth. Kepler has variance, but it isn't 20% variance. This makes it ALL THE MORE CLEAR why AMD not improving their shroud design was an utter design failure - their GPU with powertune clearly ties cooling versatality with performance, therefore it REQUIRES good cooling/acoustics to operate effectively. Having to compromise between noise and throttling by 300mhz is pure garbage. Period. You people as consumers should demand better than this, instead of believing that AMD can do no wrong.

I doubt anyone here believes that AMD can "do no wrong".
Your 78 posts so far complaining about the cooler are however, far harder to tolerate than if I had the damn thing taped to my ear.

 

[blackened23]

I doubt anyone here believes that AMD can "do no wrong".
Your 78 posts so far complaining about the cooler are however far harder to tolerate than if I had the damn thing to my ear.

Put me on ignore then. I have a right to express my opinion, even though i'm sure you don't want me to point out the obvious flaws with the 290. And I have to say, I've always been mostly positive with ATI GPUs and I was very happy with my former 7970s. I was also SUPER excited about the 290 series prior to launch and wanted it to be AMD's best GPU in years. Yet, the throttling situation with the 290X isn't acceptable - no prior ATI card has ever had a 20% performance deficiency for using a custom quiet fan profile. Again, if you don't like my opinion --- ignore feature. Use it.

 

[Carfax83]

Uber mode and GPU boost 2.0 are in no way comparable, anyone suggestion otherwise is simply to obfuscate the facts - GPU Boost 2.0 does not throttle more than 1-2 bins after 4-5 hours of "warmed up" use in my experience, while here we're seeing the 290X throttle by 300mhz.

Summary:

1)GPU boost usually never throttles, but if it does, will be 1-2 bins (13-26 mhz)
2)AMD's powertune throttles by 300 freaking mhz during quiet mode, and consisntelty does this.
3)GPU boost 2.0 is a guaranteed speed with every Kepler boosting well PAST the guaranteed speed out of box.
4)AMD powertune boost is a "holy grail" speed that will only be hit if you use an unnecessarily high fan speed.

I'm sorry, but anyone suggesting that the throttling situation on these cards is anywhere near similar is basically lying through their teeth. Kepler has variance, but it isn't 20% variance. This makes it ALL THE MORE CLEAR why AMD not improving their shroud design was an utter design failure - their GPU with powertune clearly ties cooling versatality with performance, therefore it REQUIRES good cooling/acoustics to operate effectively. Having to compromise between noise and throttling by 300mhz is pure garbage. Period. You people as consumers should demand better than this, instead of believing that AMD can do no wrong.

I agree, but I don't think I was saying that GPU boost 2.0 was similar to Uber mode. 😵

At any rate, I think you're being too hard on the reference cooler. We are forgetting that it has to deal with not only a higher TDP than the Kepler models, but a higher thermal threshold.

The 290 series was designed for higher temperatures and it has a higher TDP, so we shouldn't be shocked that it comes with a noisier cooler.

 

[Abwx]

95c, of which it manages to consistently approach.

Check the temperature and compare with the 780ti whose
VRMs can be hotter, 96.2°C, than the Radeon chip , not exactly
a good design to have a much heated power supply, good luck
if you want to push the clocks...

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/912-4/bruit-temperatures.html

 

[raghu78]

See my reply to HurleyBird. The 290 has a higher percentage gain from boost, but look how high it's thermal threshold is?

95c, of which it manages to consistently approach.

In light of that, the reference cooler doesn't look so crappy now does it, as it's having to deal with a lot more heat than the Titan cooler..

With such a high temperature threshold which is a result of the higher TDP, I'm actually skeptical that the AIB coolers will be capable of fully mitigating the heat problem.

you don't have a clue as to what you are talking. the stock cooler is affecting GPU load power as its not able to keep temps lower and chip leakage power increases with higher GPU temperatures. thats why extreme overclocking enthusiasts watercool. that would help keep the lowest temps and as a result leakage power as low as possible to enable the highest overclocks.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fht4u.net%2Freviews%2F2013%2Farctic_accelero_xtreme_iii_meets_amd_r9_290%2Findex6.php

30w power reduction with Arctic Accelero xtreme III on the R9 290. 🙄

http://www.techspot.com/review/736-amd-radeon-r9-290/page8.html

"Update: Based on your feedback, I took the IceQ X2 cooler off the HIS Radeon R9 280X and stuck it on our R9 290 sample. Cooling was dramatically improved. The FurMark stress test maxed out at 76 degrees while the card never exceeded 63 degrees in Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4. So it seems as expected the board partners will be able to solve the heat issues of the reference card."

thats a 30+c temp reduction on a custom cooler. so stop crapping. the Titan cooler is helping the 780 ti / 780 / titan keep lower temps and as a result there is lower leakage power.

 

[blackened23]

The 290 series was designed for higher temperatures and it has a higher TDP, so we shouldn't be shocked that it comes with a noisier cooler.

The 290 cooler under the hood is exactly the same as the 5870, 6970, and 7970 coolers. Therefore the acoustic performance is directly related to using a 4 year design, and nothing but that - keep in mind that during actual gaming (non furmark) loads, that the Titan uses maybe 8-9 watts less than the 290X in uber mode. AMD could have easily made a better shroud to eliminate the need for a noise versus throttling quiet mode compromise, but they didn't. It's obvious as to why to anyone that has had experience with AMD Shrouds from the past 4 years. They never changed the under the hood design of the reference shroud for the past 4 years.

Further anecdotal evidence from those using accelero coolers and what not with the 290 are also showing shocking temperature drops of 40-50 degrees. The issue isn't the chip, per se - like I said, the Titan and 290 don't consume much differently in terms of power draw. Yet the Titan shroud is just superior in terms of acoustical performance, while the 4 year old cheap plastic design of the AMD shroud is beginning to show its age. This could have been completely prevented by AMD with a better shroud. The temperature differences that people are getting with 3rd party air coolers is precisely evidence of that, when a gelid or accelero cooler lowers temps by 40C, it makes it all the more obvious that AMD screwed the hell up in their design.

I should make it clear that noise isn't the big problem. The big problem is shedding 20% performance for any quiet fan profile. Again, that is pure freaking nonsense and consumers should not put up with that. ESPECIALLY when that is the default mode on the 290X.

 

[HurleyBird]

95c, of which it manages to consistently approach.

In light of that, the reference cooler doesn't look so crappy now does it, as it's having to deal with a lot more heat than the Titan cooler..

The heatsink dissipates watts, not degrees Celsius. Don't confuse heat and temperature. In terms of heat output the 780 Ti and 290X are very close, with review sites split between which consumes more power. The fact that the 290X is running 12 degrees hotter means that the ASIC is losing more power to leakage and helps the AMD reference cooler to achieve a higher performance and lower noise rating than it would be able to if AMD kept the maximum temperature at 83 degrees like the 780 Ti.

So yes, given that the 780 Ti heatsink is much quieter despite the fact that power dissipation is comparable between both products (and is being handicapped with the 83 degree temperature target to boot) it's fair to say that Nvidia has the far, far superior reference cooler.

The 290 cooler under the hood is exactly the same as the 5870, 6970, and 7970 coolers.

The 5870 had a different cooler with no vapor chamber. From 6970 onward the design has stayed fairly constant.

 

[Gikaseixas]

The 290 cooler under the hood is exactly the same as the 5870

Are you sure? I'm quite positive that 5870 didn't have vapor chamber heatsink like it's successors.
How many posts do you think are necessary for you to make your point about the cooler?
I want a 290 series card because of the price, it's simply a great performing part for the price but the cooler is crap and i'm waiting for non reference coolers to be released. I would go Nvidia if GTX780 dropped to $400

 

[Carfax83]

OK, I was wrong.

The only 290 review I read until this morning was the Anandtech review..

Really, what the hell was AMD thinking to release the card to reviewers with such a crappy heatsink? 😕

 

[raghu78]

The 290 cooler under the hood is exactly the same as the 5870, 6970, and 7970 coolers. Therefore the acoustic performance is directly related to using a 4 year design, and nothing but that - keep in mind that during actual gaming (non furmark) loads, that the Titan uses maybe 8-9 watts less than the 290X in uber mode. AMD could have easily made a better shroud to eliminate the need for a noise versus throttling quiet mode compromise, but they didn't. It's obvious as to why to anyone that has had experience with AMD Shrouds from the past 4 years. They never changed the under the hood design of the reference shroud for the past 4 years.

Further anecdotal evidence from those using accelero coolers and what not with the 290 are also showing shocking temperature drops of 40-50 degrees. The issue isn't the chip, per se - like I said, the Titan and 290 don't consume much differently in terms of power draw. Yet the Titan shroud is just superior in terms of acoustical performance, while the 4 year old cheap plastic design of the AMD shroud is beginning to show its age. This could have been completely prevented by AMD with a better shroud. The temperature differences that people are getting with 3rd party air coolers is precisely evidence of that, when a gelid or accelero cooler lowers temps by 40C, it makes it all the more obvious that AMD screwed the hell up in their design.

I should make it clear that noise isn't the big problem. The big problem is shedding 20% performance for any quiet fan profile. Again, that is pure freaking nonsense and consumers should not put up with that. ESPECIALLY when that is the default mode on the 290X.

AMD improved the reference heatsink fan which was used on R9 270X and it resulted in reduced noise profile

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...523-amd-radeon-r9-270x-r7-260x-review-20.html

"Since our R9 270X and R7 260X samples use AMD’s reference design, we weren’t expecting much in the acoustics department but both were pleasant surprises. It looks like the R7’s axial fan does keep acoustics to a minimum but even the 270X’s improved heatsink and intake design shows a notable improvement over the HD 7870 GHz. "

I know you have been spending a lot of energy ranting about the fan noise. thankfully users on ocn and elsewhere are enjoying the card at 55% fan speed.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1440501/to-buy-r9-or-finnish-my-sli-plan/10#post_21158879

scott of TR and brent of [H] said the cooler was moderately loud at 55%. they also spent a lot of time gaming to see if they had any problems with the noise. they flat out said no. so if you are a guy who is using the card out of the box in uber its definitely going to provide a good user experience at an outstanding price/perf. if you want silent perf and 1200+ mhz clocks you can either go custom cooler like accelero xtreme iii or wait for the partners to release cards like asus dcii top, his iceq x2. that should also happen by this month end or early dec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1RYjETWR7U
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-19.html

guess what even furmark is not throttling and its low noise at 95% fan speed, at a price lower than GTX 780 ref and custom cards. i have to say your ranting is louder and more obnoxious than the R9 290 cards fan noise. :whiste:

 

[Grooveriding]

How about you raise the fan speed on the 780 Ti so that it gets maximum boost clock speed at all times with no down clocking?

That's basically what "uber mode" is on the 290x..

In fairness that would probably do nothing because the 780ti would throttle from its power limit no matter how much you let the fan spin up. Never mind that as the card comes stock, unless you run it in a sealed box with no air flow, it will wind up running as fast as it possibly can if it stays below its throttle temps, which I think is 80C, maybe 85C. The card is not going to keep clocking higher and higher the cooler you keep it, unless you actually started to overclock it and set some core/memory offsets. It has a threshold over base clock and won't keep climbing unless you overclock the card.

 

[Erenhardt]

How about my standard as a consumer? You and I both know that the typical reader for GPU reviews look at FPS charts and nothing but. Seeing uber mode numbers without knowing the context behind it will lead folks to buy a GPU and not understanding that they lose 20-25% performance for using a quiet mode fan profile. This is nonsense for a product to have such a deficiency. NONSENSE. You guys need to stop defending AMD on this crap and demand a better product. This BIOS switch SHOULD NOT EXIST. It should have a shroud that doesn't necessitate a noise versus throttling compromise. Period.

If AMD wants the 290X to be benchmarked in uber mode by every review website, they should make 55% fan the default speed with no quiet mode option. OR, they should put a label on their cards warning consumers that they lose 20-25% performance by using any sort of quiet mode - that's what really annoys me about this shroud. Noise is part of it, but with the prior generation ATI Cards you could easily fix this with custom fan profiles. With the 290X? Sorry you're screwed, you want a quiet card - you lose 20% performance.

I asked you politely about not OT this thread. It is not about reference cooler performance, it is not about how much throttling cards have, it is not about you personal feelings about amd reference design.

What you do is spreading FUD. There is no 20% difference in performance between quiet and uber.

If you keep OT, from now on I will report your posts in this thread.

Everyone, please focus on the issue here.
What is and what isn't out of the box performance?
How to test multiple settings supported by a product?
What modifications and tweaks are "ok" to do, and which are not?
Should readers know about backstage actions and pressure from manufacturers on reviewers?

 

[Keysplayr]

In fairness that would probably do nothing because the 780ti would throttle from its power limit no matter how much you let the fan spin up. As the card comes stock, unless you run it in a sealed box with no air flow, it will wind up running as fast as it possibly can.

It would probably do nothing? Fairness?

 

[3DVagabond]

"They both throttle". Yeah okay if you say so. One throttles by nearly 300mhz and another barely throttles even with vsync off at 100% GPU load -I've used kepler cards for quite a while now and the throttling is far less of an issue and does not cause a 20% drop in performance. In my personal use, none of my kepler cards have ever throttled more than 2 bins (26mhz) in real world gaming, and that is after 4-5 hours of warmed up use.

Meanwhile, you have the 290X with 40% fan speed throttling by 300mhz. Kepler's boost has variances but it is so minutely small it isn't worth noting, and it doesn't cause more than a 1-2% performance drain at MOST. Furthermore, the boost speed avertised isn't a "holy grail" type of speed, all kepler cards boost WELL PAST the advertised speed listed on the box. For example, the GTX 780 advertises a 914mhz boost, nearly every person i've spoken to boosts past 980 easily. Further, my SC ACX 780 advertises 1020mhz, and it boosts around 1100 out of box without overclocking, and all Kepler GPUs are similar.

The differences with AMD's powertune are:

1) throttling by 200-300mhz as opposed to Kepler's meager throttling of 1-2 bins in the worst scenarios.
2) the boost is an "up to" speed while Kepler's boost is guaranteed and all Kepler GPU cards boost WELL PAST their advertised speed out of box, without overclocking.

You can say both cards have the potential to throttle, but I guarantee one of these cards don't throttle to lose 20% performance. And that ISNT the 290. This is the single reason that AMD's decision to use that cheap shroud is so disappointing - I don't know of any GPU that had this type of variance for low fan RPMs. I know the 5870, 6970, and 7970 sure didn't and I quite liked all of those cards - all of those GPUs could be used at reasonably quiet levels WITHOUT sacrificing performance.

If I say so? No, this is not my opinion. Here's some published results from the site who first exposed the throttling issue.

The gtx-uber cards have been adjusted to simulate cards with custom cooling that would stop throttling. So understand this is not out of box performance for the reference card. It is better than what they are capable of simply by plugging them in and running them in default mode. The GTX non-uber is the actual reference benches.

As with our previous tests, we ensure to test different solutions taking into account their system power management / frequency / temperature so as to provide you with interesting and relevant results. Our approach at this level is of course not rigid and we adapt according to the product tested.

So this time we have not tested the GeForce GTX reference with two additional fans as was the case during their tests. Instead we have for cons incorporated the results of GeForce GTX 780 and GTX 780 Ti which we call Uber. These GeForce GTX "Uber" match cards able to maintain their maximum frequency (almost) continuously as would the case with a kit watercooling, raising the limits of GPU Boost or as this is exactly the case with many partners models for the 780 GTX, which then benefits from a system more efficient axial cooling. Everything suggests that the latter is also true for the GTX 780 Ti. Present the performance of such models seems to be a better compromise than adding additional cooling in this case, especially as the Radeon R9 290X Uber also ensures to maintain its maximum frequency.


Finally, note that due to the influence of temperature on the results, and the fact that we measure performance on a table benches taking the time to let the temperature / frequency of different cards to stabilize the temperature of the room was controlled and set at 26 ° C for all tests.

So they are actually giving the 780ti the benefit of the doubt that they will offer custom cooling solutions that will stop throttling and adjusting the 780ti to compensate for it's reference cooler's throttling. They are actually being quite kind to do this because stock out of box the 780ti doesn't produce these numbers. It produces the slower results.

Also note this is just one resolution. I chose the middle res of the tests as it seems like the most reasonable. They also do 1080, which I believe wouldn't stress the cards enough in some games, and also 4K, which I think is often unplayable and not as reasonable to expect people to use their cards.

I am rounding off decimals.

I am getting some errors with the images with my browser (Firefox). I sometimes have these issues, I don't know why. I hope all of the images show for you. HERE'S the link to the article.

290X = 10% slower in quiet mode
780ti = 8% slower with reference cooling
290X = 7% faster than 780ti.

290X = 7% slower in quiet mode.
780ti = 9% slower with reference cooling
290X is 4% faster than 780ti.

290X = 9% slower in quiet mode.
780ti = 5% slower with reference cooling.
780ti is 6% faster than 290X.

290X is 7% slower in quiet mode.
780ti is 8% slower with reference cooling.
290X is 2% faster than 780ti

290X is 5% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 7% slower with reference cooling.
780ti is 9% faster than 290X

290X is 7% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 10% slower with reference cooling
780ti is 9% faster than 290X

290x is 8% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 10% slower with reference cooling
290x is 3% faster than 780ti

290X is 5% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 8% slower with reference cooling
290X is 3% faster than 780ti

290X is 3% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 7% slower with reference cooling
290X is 10% faster than 780ti

290X is 8% slower in quiet mode
780ti is 7% slower with reference cooling
780ti is 2% faster than 290X

 

[blackened23]

i have to say your ranting is louder and more obnoxious than the R9 290 cards fan noise. :whiste:

Oh, if you say so. What really bothers me is that using a quiet fan profile results in a 20% loss of performance. Yet you keep telling us it's cool. 20% performance lost, hey no problem.

Just FYI, I loved my former ATI cards (5870 - 7970) but none of those cards required an insanely high fan profile to perform at their peak; my 7970s overclocked like crazy and could do so with a sub 45% fan speed. Sadly this isn't the case with the 290 - as i've mentioned, noise can be a problem but was easily solved with the 7970 (USE A LOWER FAN SPEED). This isn't a solution with the 290X because you lose 20% performance in the process.

But, according to you, this is cool right? We should accept this as consumers? I guess so, according to you, because from your perspective AMD can do no wrong. Which is hilarious because I guarantee that for every 1 person that buys a 290 based on value, another 2 people will avoid it because of the huge web controversy over throttling and retail sample variance. But according to you, that's all cool. 20% performance lost, no problem, right? And you call this a good product? Please.