Run to Run Comparisons
What happens if we look at this same data presented per "Run" rather than per fan speed setting?
Interestingly, having your maximum fan speed settings at 20% or 60% makes very little difference in the first couple of minutes of game play. All five fan settings are averaging 29 FPS in Crysis 3 at 2560×1440.
But things are not equal after 5-7 minutes of actual game play. Performance does scale as we increase the maximum fan speed from 20% to 60% but there appears to be some upper and lower limits to this configurability. Both the 20% and 30% results are showing average frame rates of 24 FPS, the 40% result averages 26 FPS, and the 50% (and 60%) results average 28 FPS. That is a 16% range in performance by simply moving up the fan speed bar in the AMD Catalyst Control Center.
Alright, call me crazy, but
Alright, call me crazy, but is there anything at all scientific about setting a fan speed at 40%?? Not one, just simplicity. How about setting the fan RPMs or the fan decibels for something actually performance related. 40% is arbitray between two different fans. The size and blade pitch could dictate wildly differing CFM values.
Regardless, its a pretty crazy comparison, when its clear AMD put almost zero effort into the reference cooler. They planned to give consumers a good value, not the best of everything. Its loud, we all get it, but how about an actual useful review of someone strapping a water block on it, or another cooler? How many first adopters of $500 hardware leave well enough alone? If you buy 290X cards you know what you are buying and likely have water cooling, so why pay more money for a great cooler you will take off?
In this way it is also configurable performance in FPS, temps and sound levels.
I am not sure what to make of
I am not sure what to make of my R9 290 to be honest. My waterblock arrives tomorrow so my opinions are likely to change, however from the testing that I have done with this card over the last two weeks I can say that overclocking is totally pointless with stock cooling. My average clocks in BF4 with fan on auto is around 820mhz with a low of 720mhz… I quickly hit 94C. The latest 13.11 beta 9.4 catalyst drivers have no performance tab on my test machine (known bug), so I’m not bothering to test with power limit increased until this is fixed and my waterblock is installed.
I am sure that once adequately cooled this problem will disappear.
Still I determine that AMD should be blamed for shoddy marketing and a lousy stock HSF.
They should have been honest enough to state that the clocks on this card are 800mhz boosted to 950mhz (depending on heat and power)…. Just my opinion.
I sold my GTX 780 for a stock R9 290 and believe that this was a good deal. I got $500 for my GTX 780 and this allowed me to buy the R9 290 and a new EK Waterblock. Fully cooled I will be able to get better performance from the R9 290 and as I only play BF4 I am excited to see what Mantle brings to the table later in December.
Nice review as always.