Is there a difference between R9 Fury X and the Nano besides TDP?
Even with the $150 price drop, liquid cooling the Nano brings them at the same price.
>Not liquid cooling everything possible
You can buy a non reference 980 ti for $500~$530 now. AMD can't compete.
Just posting random crap really. Considering how ridiculous it is seems quite a few people did the mineral oil thing.
There exist water blocks for ram, hdds, ssds, and I've even seen a custom block for a fucking optical drive. The people stop at nothing to make their machine the most "uber" thing ever made.
Reducing number of parts that will fail (In a 100% Liquid Cooled system, with Solid State Drives, the only moving part is the Pump)
Easier to control where waste heat is ejected (Since it's all centered around the radiator/pipes)
Next, we'll probably see water cooling on RAM/VRMs come into play more, given the increasingly higher clock rate of RAM and VRM efficiency being stressed more. And we'll probably see water cooling for SSDs become a thing as "overclock" SSDs becomes a thing in the future (Someone'll eventually release an SSD that gets "hacked" with custom firmware to allow overclocking chips/circuits/etc. in them, then the SSD overclocking era will begin).
The cheapest 980ti i can get in my 3rd world eastern european shithole is 800 euros lol. Keep in mind we also make like 500 euro a month with a decent job. I fucking love being a yurofag..
i have a Nano, and the reason to watercool it is:
the default fan is noisy.
the card throttles.
the reasons NOT to watercool the card is that it doesnt OC well because it cant get enough power since it only has 1 8pin plug.
but from my experience. undervolting the card actually made it way way better.
it was cooler, more silent and performance loss was like 150 points in Valley.
He can cool it passively if the radiator is huge enough.
a few questions:
how viscous is mineral oil? is it thin enough to convect heat away from things like VRMs in a setup like this?
how flammable is that shit? isn't mineral oil basically just kerosene with slightly longer alkane chains?
I'm not previous anon and not a water cooling enthusiast, but isn't there some sort of attempt to maintain a common ground across the metal components in a loop?
I would have though that galvanic corrosion from different metals would have been the bigger problem.
>For what fucking reason?
Because the Nano is now signficantly cheaper than the Fury X, is the exact same chip and can be easily overclocked to the same speed as an overclocked Fury X once you raise the power target.
I don't understand how people could have much interest in the Fury or the Nano at this point in time.
Their Polaris-based successors will be here in 6-8 months and obsolete them so thoroughly it won't even be funny.
> 2x bandwidth (1024 GB/s)
> 2x to 8x more memory (likely 8GB std, 16GB for $$$)
> 2x rendering capacity, plus first substantial update to GCN in years
> same TDP
> DP 1.3, HDMI 2.0
> h.265 10b UHD whatever en/decoding for muh chinese cartoons
The last time a generational jump as big as this happened was in 2002 with the Radeon 9700 Pro.
It seems to work pretty well, there were a few supercomputers using a similar system with a much bigger reservoir.
It's not going to ignite unless you do something full retard. I'm no chemist but google implies the flash point is over 330 F
>The last time a generational jump as big as this happened was in 2002 with the Radeon 9700 Pro.
9700 Pro was 10-20% faster in normal games than previous gen. The only reason it ended up great was because it had extremely good shader support, which the Geforce line did not, and in games that used shaders it actually was up to 100% faster.
I'd say the HD5000 series would be a better analog for the Polaris cards - used new node, had up to 2x performance in all legacy apps.
I've a feeling that Polaris will end up better than Pascal, especially regarding HBM usage, since they managed to already demo that while NVidia didn't.
>9700 Pro was 10-20% faster in normal games than previous gen.
that was kind of the worst-case scenario, like low resolutions where systems were already mostly CPU bound anyway.
and it wasn't just shaders where the perf roughly doubled, it was any heavy use of AF/AA, which you had to enable sparingly in previous gens since they tended to murder frame rates.