AMD: Volcanic Islands R1100/1200 (8***/9*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
Not if, as AMD has stated, there is something wrong with the sample.
Iffy mounting in the assembly of the card can mess with a cooler's ability to conduct heat away from the chip, which can reduce the effect of fan speed on overall temperature and cause the chip to bump into the fan or temp limits.
In the old days, the card would probably crash or break, and a user would RMA the board. Now, quality control issues in physical assembly may only hobble a card.
Iffy mounting in the assembly of the card can mess with a cooler's ability to conduct heat away from the chip, which can reduce the effect of fan speed on overall temperature and cause the chip to bump into the fan or temp limits.
In the old days, the card would probably crash or break, and a user would RMA the board. Now, quality control issues in physical assembly may only hobble a card.
Good point, was just the way you wrote it didn't make sense to me. You're right, in cases of bad quality control like this the cards might get by on reduced performance instead of just breaking down. The way it's being reported though - as some kind of inherent silicon dice roll - is complete and utter FUD though.
There's just no way AMD can get away with such a huge gap in silicon quality between samples and let's be honest - even if they were trying to then surely this chip would have been a 290 non-X anyway? I just wish the tech press was capable of logical thought. Instead of just looking at it logically Tom's has gone and wrote a ton of bullshit about the silicon lottery and now it's been repeated throughout the web by click-happy "tech journalists".
There's just no way AMD can get away with such a huge gap in silicon quality between samples and let's be honest - even if they were trying to then surely this chip would have been a 290 non-X anyway? I just wish the tech press was capable of logical thought. Instead of just looking at it logically Tom's has gone and wrote a ton of bullshit about the silicon lottery and now it's been repeated throughout the web by click-happy "tech journalists".
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I don't understand why the witch hunt on those pointing the finger at Ryan Smith and his conclusions on the R9 290, regarding noise.
While I do think that sometimes the forum has this "Guru Wall of Protection" going on whenever something technical is being discussed, what is being pointed out about Ryan Smith's conclusions is anything but technical.
I don't think this was ever a personal matter on any degree. These are opinions on reviews that people (IMO) should have the right to express. It has nothing to do with solving things over PM, just because the person is registered in the forum.
Regardless, in order to avoid any kind of conflict, let's just call anandtech's reviewer of the R9 290 as "The Reviewer".
Just for the record, here are The Reviewer's comments about the noise in the HD5870's review:
And then here are The Reviewer's comments about the R9 290's noise:
From reading these comments, one could get the idea that the R9 290 must surely be a lot louder than the HD5870, but then there's this in Anandtech's latest review:
Wait.. what?
So The Reviewer goes from "not egregious" to "unreasonably loud" between cards that apparently have similar noise outputs? Just because the competition has quieter solutions?
And why was the "remember to go for versions with 3rd party coolers" card used in the HD7950 Boost review but downright omitted in the R9 290 review?
Plus, perception/awareness to loudness in graphics cards was always such a subjective factor that I don't remember ever seeing it being brought up to justify a "Don't Buy!" stamp, not even in the FX5800 days.
Getting a "Beware the Noise!" stamp makes sense, as does the "Beware the Power Consumption!", and they both can count as negatives in a review.
But there are so many gamers who don't care about noise during gameplay - because they're either playing with loudspeakers to the max or using head/earphones.. so in the end, does it really matter?
More importantly, it matters to the point of advising not to buy a graphics card that is an obvious performance+features+longevity/price champion?
IMHO, that's ludicrous.
So if I'm the market for a graphics card, what is The Reviewer's advice, then? Spend $100 more to get a graphics card that has lower performance because it's quieter? Get a GTX770 that sometimes has 35% less performance for 17% lower price, because it's quieter?
I'm an avid fan of Anandtech's articles and I often use them as reference. Their technical explanations are usually top-notch for a layman like me and I like the methodology in their test results.. But the conclusion to the R9 290's review made me think twice about ever giving a damn over whatever they write in the conclusion.
While I do think that sometimes the forum has this "Guru Wall of Protection" going on whenever something technical is being discussed, what is being pointed out about Ryan Smith's conclusions is anything but technical.
I don't think this was ever a personal matter on any degree. These are opinions on reviews that people (IMO) should have the right to express. It has nothing to do with solving things over PM, just because the person is registered in the forum.
Regardless, in order to avoid any kind of conflict, let's just call anandtech's reviewer of the R9 290 as "The Reviewer".
Just for the record, here are The Reviewer's comments about the noise in the HD5870's review:
The reviewer said:
And then here are The Reviewer's comments about the R9 290's noise:
The Reviewer said:
From reading these comments, one could get the idea that the R9 290 must surely be a lot louder than the HD5870, but then there's this in Anandtech's latest review:
Wait.. what?
So The Reviewer goes from "not egregious" to "unreasonably loud" between cards that apparently have similar noise outputs? Just because the competition has quieter solutions?
And why was the "remember to go for versions with 3rd party coolers" card used in the HD7950 Boost review but downright omitted in the R9 290 review?
Plus, perception/awareness to loudness in graphics cards was always such a subjective factor that I don't remember ever seeing it being brought up to justify a "Don't Buy!" stamp, not even in the FX5800 days.
Getting a "Beware the Noise!" stamp makes sense, as does the "Beware the Power Consumption!", and they both can count as negatives in a review.
But there are so many gamers who don't care about noise during gameplay - because they're either playing with loudspeakers to the max or using head/earphones.. so in the end, does it really matter?
More importantly, it matters to the point of advising not to buy a graphics card that is an obvious performance+features+longevity/price champion?
IMHO, that's ludicrous.
So if I'm the market for a graphics card, what is The Reviewer's advice, then? Spend $100 more to get a graphics card that has lower performance because it's quieter? Get a GTX770 that sometimes has 35% less performance for 17% lower price, because it's quieter?
I'm an avid fan of Anandtech's articles and I often use them as reference. Their technical explanations are usually top-notch for a layman like me and I like the methodology in their test results.. But the conclusion to the R9 290's review made me think twice about ever giving a damn over whatever they write in the conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean that AMD has pushed the card to a point where it draws considerably more power than the competition, and can't feasibly yield any more performance without creating ungodly amounts of noise- at least given the reference cooler they chose. Kind of like what NVIDIA had to do with the GTX480. The card even at stock is really quite loud.
With a Titan quality cooler it would be much more desirable IMO. I expect the AIB partners to rectify the situation, but AMD should have done so themselves.
Alright folks I think everyone has made their points about Ryan's review very clear. It's just a single data point. If you think it's invalid, ignore it. I doubt their is some grand conspiracy going on at Anandtech. And we certainly don't need to debate it in the VI arch thread.
If there's a massive disconnect of performance between review samples and retail cards, we'll know soon enough! No need to aimlessly argue about it.
If there's a massive disconnect of performance between review samples and retail cards, we'll know soon enough! No need to aimlessly argue about it.
The current driver is controlling the fan by PWM set point. Electrical to mechanical can present some variance; we're in the process of changing the control to an RPM set point.
Scott of TechReport seems to be having a change of heart. While I understand AMD's desire to be as competitive as possible it's strange that they didn't realize the 290 had all of this extra headroom until the very last minute. Surely they more than anyone else know that faster fan = lower temperature = faster 290.
@scottwasson said:
Dunno why he changed his mind, but it does seem odd that they wouldn't go all out on the cooler... especially on the 290X.
As of now there is hardly any reason to buy the 290X over the 290. With a better cooler, the 290X could come much closer to justifying its higher price tag and I can't imagine it would affect the BOM that much.
Or how about go the NVIDIA GTX770 route? The reference GTX770 has a friggin Titan cooler, although as of now there is literally only one reference 770 available on Newegg. I don't see anyone up in arms over that.
Send out reference cards to reviewers with badass reference coolers, and even if the AIB partners decide not to ship that in volume, they still look great in the press.
As of now there is hardly any reason to buy the 290X over the 290. With a better cooler, the 290X could come much closer to justifying its higher price tag and I can't imagine it would affect the BOM that much.
Or how about go the NVIDIA GTX770 route? The reference GTX770 has a friggin Titan cooler, although as of now there is literally only one reference 770 available on Newegg. I don't see anyone up in arms over that.
Send out reference cards to reviewers with badass reference coolers, and even if the AIB partners decide not to ship that in volume, they still look great in the press.
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidGraham
Veteran
so was he in favor or against it ? I didn't follow up on that .
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35699215&postcount=24
And incidentally, Ryan Smith reports the base clockspeed of the 290 as 662 MHz. Whether or not that's in the official documentation I have no idea. "Up to" marketing is misleading, I'll give you that.
And incidentally, Ryan Smith reports the base clockspeed of the 290 as 662 MHz. Whether or not that's in the official documentation I have no idea. "Up to" marketing is misleading, I'll give you that.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think I was clear enough before, this is a VI arch thread, not which sites have bias thread...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Gibbo at OCUK found the press card being worse than retail:
Gibbo said:Absolute rubbish about press cards being golden samples.
We had a press sample card, it did OK, we then got an Asus card and a Sapphire card form our warehouse stock, they both beat the press card in all our benchmarks as they hit higher overclocks. None of the cards experienced any throttling issues.
So without a doubt, complete BS.
Just way too many variables from reviewers all over the world. Ambient temps can be anyware from 1-10C different from one guy to the next. Obviously the cards run hot and any kind of manufacturing abnormality like the tim, heatsink contact, leakage of the particular asic, etc could spell trouble for a card that is programmed to run up to 95C before clock throttling.
There has to be a reason why AMD is using those coolers. Maybe they are sitting on shedloads of stock, or have some deal with whatever company provides them for x amount of years?
Whatever, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again. Such needless hassle over a simple part, and they could easily have charged $50 more with a better one. Instead they've basically snatched a draw from the jaws of victory.
Whatever, they've shot themselves in the foot yet again. Such needless hassle over a simple part, and they could easily have charged $50 more with a better one. Instead they've basically snatched a draw from the jaws of victory.
Its an absolutely fantastic GPU. For those who will put on a third party cooler or better yet, a water block, Hawaii will be an uncaged beast.
Unfortunately though the first reviews, the "first impression", kind of lives on with the card. They should have devised some badass Metal alloy 290X cooler of their own.
Unfortunately though the first reviews, the "first impression", kind of lives on with the card. They should have devised some badass Metal alloy 290X cooler of their own.
THG hints at AMD preparing a >US$550 answer to Nvidia' upcoming GTX 780 Ti, essentially a 290X with a better cooler and presumably higher clocks. If this is true, whether it will be a new SKU or simply recommendations to AMD's partners for their factory overclocked configurations remains to be seen.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-review-benchmark,3659-2.html