Did you flash the bios to the Asus bios? then you could use MSI Afterburner to overclock it further and voltage up to 1.36v. I have seen some insane overclocks on these HD5870. I personally have hit 1020/1298 on mine stable, but temps start to get up in the 80c range.
no I haven't. do you have links to save me some time in research? let's see what this thing can really do with a decent cooling L/C system ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
N/M I found it.
[edit] wow, seeing guys freezing at 960 under furmark after 60 secs.. when I run this Baby for 2 1/2 hrs at 970 really shows what good cooling does!
Yeah, the HD5870 is a monster overclocker and if you can cool it I am thinking 1100 shouldn't be an issue.
As I figured, the DD 5870 block is not all that attractive. However, they are gonna be charging only $99.95 for it. DD full coverage block under 100 bones? Thats a new one on me!
http://home.comcast.net/~jefftrexler/dd5870.jpg
There's an EK block that's the same price and imo looks better. I wonder how their preformance compares for being the same price.
The DD one looks like it has the tiniest amount of surface area where water flows.
Wow, so many choices. All nice looking blocks. I may just go with Swiftech's separate heatsink and keep using my MCW60
Don't knock the DD design (well, okay, you can knock the lack of shiny :D) - they're still using bead-blasting, which does wonders for cooling effectiveness. My DD GTX280 block has hung with the best of the claims, even though its internal cooling fins are practically afterthoughts. And extremely low-restriction to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams
Really wish they'd start countersinking their screws, though. That design leaves about 1mm between the bolts and any card below it, and my open bench lets the cards tilt a little.
im not sure if beadblasting is gonna make up for that lack of surface area, or turbulence for that matter, something the EK for example does have. besides that it's just ugly as sin and DD is usually more expensive.
Well 1100 was an issue, at least with this card. I locked up at 1070 in Vantage. Dropped it to 1060, and seem stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
http://www.swiftnets.com/ASSETS/IMAG...@1060-1300.png
Here is a screenshot of my Koolance 5870 full cover performance. Room temp is 74F. Dedicated loop, DD-CPX1, MCR220 w/ low speed yates, Koolance 5870 block.
http://imgur.com/gpILT.png
It scores 18270 on Vantage but I don't have a screenshot of that yet.
Wow Gabe! That's a sweet overclock. These HD5870's are awesome. Babalouj, you can go higher, but that still a nice overclock. Nice job!
Oh I know I can get it higher, it doesn't even need 1.25V, this is the first setting I put in to test with. Its Georgia Tech homecoming weekend so I won't have time to sit down with it until Sunday.
Aquacomputer blocks (as usual) look the best. Awesome work guys :up:
i have the ek fc block and i am also stuck on 1060/1300 at 1.310v.
GPU Temp ~37C havnt reach 38C yet
VDDC Phase ~45C havnt reach 50C yet.
Any pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen3
wow, that's interesting. let's compare the parameters affecting coolingQuote:
Originally Posted by babalouj
Your voltage = 1,250, Mine = 1,350 => .1v higher (more heat)
Your GPU clock = 1,000, Mine = 1060 => 60mhz higher (more heat)
Your Ambient air = 23.3C, Mine = 26.8C => 3.5C higher
Your GPU temp = 42C, Mine = 39C => 3C Lower
Now for the cooling gear
Your loop = dedicated, Mine = same
Your W/B= Koolance, Mine = Swiftech
your Rad = MCR220, Mine = MCR220
Your pump = DDC, Mine = MCP655
Your fans = Low speed yates, Mine = Medium speed Ruilian
I have a higher voltage, which really increases the TDP. For reference, before the volt mod, @970 core, I was seeing 33C @ 23C ambient @ 1.165v.
Things that make you go "Hmmmm". Usually you do not see much difference between FC blocks. Gabe, you may have a winner here.
Might be the HD5870 as well, they seem to have different VIDQuote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
let's push a little further then:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
He is pulling 43A, we are pulling 51A, 8A more
His avg VDDC is 55C, ours is 59.5C, 4.5C more
So we are definitely heating up our card much higher
Yet, we show 39C GPU temps vs. his 42C.
There is also a time issue: his Furmark test is 3 1/2mn, and we don't know if his loop had enough time to stabilize before that. Ours is taken after 6 1/2mn, immediately after we ran Vantage. So we can assume that our temps were fairly stable, whereas we don't know if his were. I'm sure he can clarify that though. However to be fair in a comparative, both tests should exhibit at least 20~30 minutes of constant load.
You draw your own conclusions anyways ;)
Sounds good. Please clarify:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen3
Dedicated loop?
Rad?
Fans?
Pump?
Ambient temp (critical information) ?
Screenshot?
Personally I wouldn't dare draw any conclusions, there are far too many variables between two systems for a fair comparison. Loop and air flow rates for a start. I'd also want to see a couple of mount values for an average. With the same rig in a reasonably controlled environment and I'd accept it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
slow down your fans gabe, to his levels, and then lets see whats left of thet 3C difference.
Starting to sound like a p:banana:ssing match to me.
I don't see any reason to continue this e-testing/comparing thing. Either someone gather some/all FC 5870 blocks and do some proper testing or just leave out comparisons...
My :2cents:
I went to do another test but this time i had to increase my voltage to 1.35 since my old 1.3 is not stable at 1060 anymore and i dont know why.
There is not just the voltage increase that has changed but also my VDCC Current jumped from 40A to 70-80A which made my VDDC go from 45 to 75
It is winter here and my heater also kicked in so my ambient is really high right now.
My GPU loop is MCP355 XSPC Top, Two MCR220 and 4 Yate L. 1/2 Tube 4 Ft. no Elbows
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WKGkHFzCWkE/St...5s/Capture.jpg
Anyone know why my VDCC went up soo high?
Well I would have said from the VDDC current that the actual VGPU was higher than 1.35v.
My guess is the VRMs are sending the kill/throttle signal intermittently. Unlike with previous gens, throttling isn't done in software any more, it's done in hardware.
FurMark and OCCT make recent ATi cards pretty angry :p:
doing now - will run them at 5v instead of 12v. In fact, I'm going to set up the card EXACTLY as he is, and let the fun roll! good or bad, I will publish the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChielScape
The reason why I'm so interested in this is that these loops are reasonably similar other than the fans; its the same heat exchanger, he is using DDC, and I am using MCP650, but I am also using quick-disconnect fittings (horribly restrictive); so if anything, my flow is much more restricted than his.Quote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
regarding the fans, I do concur; see above.
Nah.. I'm cool. No one's claiming this is a scientific test here, not me anyways. These are users first impressions. I'm seeing something of interest in what I see as a comparable environment and I'm just pointing it out; sorry if it's showing my block in a favorable light for now. Should I throw in a couple more blocks in that loop to make it look worse? :ROTF: J/KQuote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
gabe, I wouldn't compare 2 identical systems built by the same person that were being run in a climate controlled room to each other much less two different ppl with different blocks. The simple reason is all the variables fornowagain alluded to, some of which are completely out of the realm of you or other end users ability to control (chip height or it just may be a hotter chip being just 2 of many) . We have to constantly say this to newbs when they question why their system doesn't match the performance of some other system that is nearly identical to theirs. I'm surprised someone who's been in the game as long as yourself would even go down that road.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Cool off Dude, as I said earlier this isn't a scientific review; this is users exchanging impressions on similar builds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it might give an incentive to babalouj to re-install his block to see if he gets better results. For all we know, he might have a bad mount. Fixing this would be a positive outcome wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
So, I did as promised and reset my bench to exactly his settings, safe for fan voltage (could only drop to 7v as I couldn't find the 5v adapters.. we just moved in, lab is still a mess..)
Now, the current draws are nominally similar between the two cards (mine's a tad higher for whatever reason), and ambients are the same (cool day in socal):
http://www.swiftnets.com/ASSETS/IMAG...1275-1,25v.png
We now observe a 7C Delta in GPU temp between the cards. The scale is such that a bad mount of his block is quite likely.
@babalouj: I'd take a look at that thermal grease imprint if I were you, and make sure you tighten everything down nice and snug when you re-install.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen3
Yes, it's very possible that the voltage tweak went amok. He's drawing 70A, and VDDC temps went way up, which confirms it. For reference, my card was only drawing 50A at the same voltage.Quote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
Try to push the GPU frequency.. if it goes way up, then you know you have much more voltage than 1.35
Now if you don't want to take a chance with your card, you could also try to reset to default, redo the O/C and then see if your current draw is still the same after that.
Absolutely. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
I'm chill. . .we're cool :up:, it's just your comparison post reads like "yours vs. mine. . .I'm better. . .neener:p:" which bugged me a bit due to what I mentioned in my prior post.
btw, any new word on the DDC 3.x5's? :D
Not yet. It's p***ng me off :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
Personally, I like to see these little comparisons of average setups versus some controlled enviroment. In my opinion, they are more real life as what to expect, granted two are not enough, but it's like overclocking. We all look to see what the average user is able to get out of their chip, or in this case video card, and we draw a conclusion that we should be able to mirror those results to a certain degree. There is a reason why the I7 920 is so popular amongst overclockers and that's because so many folks were able to overclock it above 4Ghz with ease and not in a controlled environment, and more importantly, very different environments. I don't think we should take these results as a "fact", but it is nice to see some results, if nothing else we get to see the improvements that a FC block can bring to the HD5870, regardless of the brand of block.
It is nice to see these real-world test, but just as waterlogged said, it needs to be kept in perspective. There are alot of newbies that come onto this forum that would see gabe's post and automatically think that his block is better than the Koolance block. They would then get Gabe's block and not be able to reproduce his results and then come back complaining about it. :(
The 5870s do look promising though. My question is, do these OC's make any difference in FPS in say Crysis?
for once i agree with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by millertime359
and yes the oc's do make them faster...you should try overclocking...and benching
First, I agree that noob's might take it as a "fact", however, if they do then oops, they should have done the research. We have stickies for a reason and we all started as a noob and we all made some mistakes, but you learn from them or at least you should. Gabe was not claiming block supremacy, only that the results were interesting. Was he skating the line? Probably, but so what, all reps do, it's part of the learning curve. My point is, let's not turn this thread into "smack down" just because Gabe may or may not have skated the line. It's nice to see results regardless of who is giving them. Unless it's an official review done by somone independent and respected, it shouldn't be met with a lot of scrutiny, just my opinion.
Enough of that stuff. Yes, getting a 20-30% increase out of your card will help your FPS. Does it make a difference? If it's a difference between 25 and 30fps, then yes, because that's the difference between playable and not playable. If it's the difference between 100 and 150fps, then no it would make little difference in game play. But, and I say "but", it can make a huge difference in your benchmarks. Just go check out the HD5800 series overclocking thread and you should get an idea of how much of an overclocking monster these cards are. Usually, you can get a 7-12% overclock out of a card and these are blowing that away on stock cooling. It helps that you can adjust the voltages, which, in my opinion, is why you have to cool the vrm's to get the most out of the card.
:eek: That is a first Honda, I'm amazed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
I guess I should of worded my question a little bit better. I noticed that shader clock is turned all the way off on most of the screen shots and that is where the OC question came from. I'm still a noob myself, but I though that the shader clocks help with gameplay. I think I may have to venture into the GPU forums and read up on that then.
Thanks guys.
ok it just got worse.
i uninstalled then reflashed the card with asus5870 bios and redid everything. This time however i am seeing 90A+ in VDDC current draw....
Anyone have any ideas on whats wrong? I am just going to flash back to the stock bios for now see if itll fix the problem.
EDIT: With stock bios at 900/1300 i am seeing 60-65A... You think my card is a bad one?
gpu-z don't show the shader speed from ati cards..thats it. nvidia cards makes the shader speed available for gpu-z.Quote:
Originally Posted by millertime359
Definitely appears to be passive cooling on the VRMs...can you confirm Dean? Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by [Koolance] Dean
Awesome VRM temps Gabe. I apologize if you've posted this, but could you post a picture of the internal waterpath of the block?Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Thank you!
OIC, Thanks Honda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
It is not passive, but the water flow is more distant from VRMs than with EK block.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razrback16
Passive cooling would mean for example heatsink without fan blowing on it.
hiQuote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
quick qustion
why are the spacers not fittied / machined into the copper block
heres mine fitted
@1000 & 1275mem 1.25 volts
[kooolance]dean
invisible o-ring? :D
i like the internals :)
Thanks for the response Eddy -- although this would meet my definition of passive which would mean no active water or air flow to cool the material meeting the object being cooled. Appreciate the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
@ Beast200 - Simple, cost. They would have to use a piece of copper that was as thick as the parts with standoffs and then machine all the copper off. It's a waste of copper, time consuming and very expensive. You have two choices, include spacers like EK or add the standoffs on afterwards like Koolance did. Both are effective at keeping the PCB from being warped.
after reading all posts I think I have a bad mount.
I don't know why only my card have so bad VRM temps.
I did not change the voltages, with stock frequencies I got 80º on VRMs too. I don't know why the current draw is so high either.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...021024x576.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...081024x576.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...091024x576.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...141024x576.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...oler/temps.jpg
terrible VDDC temps... I don't want to mount it again but I think I'll have no other option
this is after 15 min under OCCT GPU test
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m...tesocctGPU.gif
Take the block off the card and take picture of the contact.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo_bsb
Also tell us your watercooling system setup.
The overall temps are high which might mean your system is overloaded.
. . .or it could be that Eddy still doesn't believe that his GPU blocks need spacers and is only throwing them in for the "idiots" that don't know how to mount a block. :rolleyes: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
HiQuote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
i wonder the same
i have had 3 other GPU EK waterblocks without spacers
last one was the 4870 and i must admit the card could of bent badly
with out care
I think what you're seeing is 'right' and is how the card is responding to the VRMs being pushed too hard (because of FurMark) and why FurMark is not the right test for these cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen3
As I posted before, the new throttling mechanism checks on the VRMs and whether or not they're being pushed too hard. If they report they're being pushed too hard, the card will internally back down PowerPlay settings (this is when you see 40A instead of higher numbers). When the VRMs report no problems is when you see the higher numbers (the correct numbers).
You're getting 60-65A at lower settings because you're at lower settings and that allows the VRMs to not be stressed (which allows FurMark to run fully unthrottled).
Do your GPU temps increase when amperage goes up? If they do, then the amperage reading is correct. I suspect while the GPU can do 1050+MHz with 1.3+V through FurMark, the VRMs cannot handle that much load (even when cooled properly) and that's why you're seeing the invisible hardware throttling.
Guys, I don't think FurMark/OCCT is a good test for these cards....at low settings they'll almost definitely run unthrottled and have the really high temperatures. But at high settings they'll throttle (VRM's OCP, not GPU instability) and run at lower temps/amperage.
Maybe something like 3DMark with GPUz running in the background would be a good solid point? Or AtiTool? FurMark/OCCT are just too brutal :shakes:
FWIW, the hardware OCP is a new feature implemented because of OCCT/FurMark
Furmark and OCCT are just stupid in general. Nobody should be using it to prove ANYTHING. No game, transcoding, 3d rendering or anything people ACTUALLY use during the life of their system generates that kind of load.
:clap::up::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams
+1
No you are comparing and trying to promote your product based on the results of your tests vs. "the other guys". It has nothing to do with you being "interested" in the difference, at least other than for "wowee" factor. At least be that honest with yourself and us :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Hopefully we'll see someone do a comparison test with the same conditions/equipment for each block. I'm very interested to see how such a test will go.
I'm seeing strange behavior like this with Furmark, really extreme temps compared to say running Crysis at 1080i with 85% GPU utilization where temps are really low. So there must be something that is triggering this effect. I don't have the knowledge to understand what it is but I'd sure like to know if it's the test software (ie Furmark), or if it's mounting, or block or something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
It has already been stated in various threads about the 5800 series that Furmark is not the best test for them, haven't heard about OCCT being bad though. Personally, if it passes the benchmarks without artifacting and I can play games for 3-4 hours then I consider that stable. OCCT, like Prime95, is good to test your CPU for stability, but stability is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. If you are trying to test the temps, run multi passes of 3DMark06 or Vantage of the GPU only tests and that should give you an idea of the temps you will see.
OCCT GPU test is even more brutal than FurMark, IMO.
Gabe has stated his interest in checking out the card/cooling and the differences other are seeing. Let's leave it at that, and not get into your interpretation of motives, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by santiagodraco
Pretty sure it's the cost issue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=46
By the way Eddy, what ever happened to this promise?
"I promise you we will start seriously to find solution to this, to provide you the standoffs for et least next coming water blocks if not for the present ones.
Options are:
- plastic standoffs that are additionally glued to the copper
- metal standoffs that are additionally glued to the copper
- full copper one-piece standoffs like XSPC and some others have it"
That was made last year today.
Eddy has shown a repeated hidden disdain for standoff's and those requesting them, as if they are some how incapable of properly mounting a GPU block. Some of the ppl that requested standoff's from Eddy are far from "inexperienced" at installing GPU blocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
From your link
and from a couple other posts,Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
I don't doubt that Eddy has a disdain for standoffs, as I already pointed out, he promised at the very least plastic ones glued on, which still has not happened. The question originally asked was why EK did not fittied/machine the standoffs into the block, which would be cost. That was my first point, my second was the promise made by Eddy one year ago today about having the standoffs either machined or glued onto the block. Quite honestly, it's a pain and messy to use TIM to hold plastic spacers in place while you line up the block. My first FC blocks were EK's for my HD3870's and I had no issue mounting them without the spacers/standoffs and therefore am capable of doing so, but I still would rather have them on the block anyway.
Edit: By the way, I am pretty sure we agree that the blocks should use standoffs and that even experienced folks have had issues with blocks not having standoffs.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
I've asked this before but don't recall ever getting an answer but, is screwing the spacers in place and then using just a couple dabs of super glue on the outside of the spacer to hold it in place feasible?
I tried playing Aion in windowed mode at max everything till i was getting under 45fps and gpu load to 95%. My vddc current is normal again at ~40-45A at 1060/1300 1.31v and i had the game running 6hrs+ no problem.
Funny, I actually didn't think of doing that. I will try that tonight after work since I have to install mine. Do you think that the super glue would hurt the nickel plating? I doubt it and wouldn't really see it, but stranger things have happened before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
Haven't a clue but super glue seems to be fairly benign with metal IIRC.
Eric, go back to my screenshots, and take a look at my VDDC temps at 1.35v.. I'm averaging 59C under Furmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I'll let you know then. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged
Yeah, your results are throwing a wrench in my throttling theory :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Pen3 might just have borked current sensors causing the odd 70+A readings :shrug:
right ;) so, can we not reasonably assume that these high VDDC temps are the result of poor mounts? But then the pertinent question would be to ask: why poor mounts? user error, or something else? scrupulous inspection is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
If it were a poor mount, I think that would show in games though?
(though pen3 didn't say what the temps were in Aion, just the amperage)
Not enough data to draw conclusions yet :p:
Wooooaaah, I go away for the weekend and see alot of responses to the koolance results I got. First off, there are a few issues that need to be pointed out about my setup vs Gabes. My GPU loop is internal blowing hot air out of the case while my CPU loop is internal and pulling cool air in. I would like to clarify that I am using a CPX1 not a DDC which is a HUGE difference from your 655. Also, my 74C is what my room thermostat is reading so case temps are going to be higher. All things said though I think both blocks are great performers from what I have seen. I was just trying to post results so people could see the koolance in action.
Nevertheless, swiftech's Komodo-class waterblocks have always had a much more complex internal structure, so a lower GPU temp would be expected.
I don't think it is overloaded, It has a Q6600 (200W under load), X38 chipset (30W???) and the 5870 under a PA120.3 and a MCR220.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy_EK
An user sent me a PM reporting bad stand offs on the koolance block.
I'll check it later this week, right now I'm too tired to unmount everything again.
With Furmark my vddc shoots up in the 80sQuote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WKGkHFzCWkE/St...2/Untitled.jpg
Yeah, seems to me that the throttle/kill signal is being sent intermittently...past 80C while being pretty far overspec is asking a lot of the VRMs, which could explain why you see the jumpy amperage readings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pen3
No way Aion should provide the same amperage loads as FurMark--FurMark is significantly more stressful and power-eating than any game.
Aion is almost unplayable on my old 4890. The cryengine is pretty intense. I still get 50fps in the towns on the 5870, but a hell lot better than the 4890.
Waterlogged, I owe you an apology, I said I would try glueing the spacers in place, but got too impatient and just used artic ceramique to hold them in place. A little messy, but does the job. I did discover an issue and a perfect example of why standoffs are better than not having them.
Well, I installed mine tonight and I will need someone else to confirm what I discovered. This is a perfect example of why standoffs are needed, the backplate actually hits the block right under the ports on the backside of the block causing the backplate to warp. If you did not have the standoffs I imagine the PCB would also warp. For those that have installed theirs already if you could visually check just to confirm it I would appreciate it. Otherwise I love the block, although mine has a nick on the top of the block exposing the copper under the nickel plating, not a big deal and not something I am going to worry about, but someone needs to take a closer look at the nickel blocks before letting them out of the warehouse. Also, while there are enough thermal pads it would be nice if there was a little extra just in case something happens, i.e. you make a bad cut and an extra screw or two along with an extra spacer would be nice. Installation was fairly easy as long as you take your time. I did end up using artic ceramique to keep the spacers in place. I was going to glue them, but I didn't want to wait or mess with it. I haven't tested it yet, but I imagine it will do a great job just like other EK blocks.
what's wrong with inlcuding some of these?
http://70.169.170.235/acatalog/SCREWNUTMlarge.jpg
Do you have any pics of the warping please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
So others can see exactly what you mean ;)
So to recap... The Swiftech and BP models are compatible with both 5850 and 5870. EK, Koolance and Aquagrafix are not and need individual blocks for the 5850 / 5870 right?
No I do not right now, but you can look at the EK HD5870 block mounting thread and see right under the fittings is where the backplate hits. I can take some pics tonight when I get home from work though and show you what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett
I have never ever found a need for spacers when using ek blocks. Ive been using them since x1900 series. Unless cards have gotten worse or I just lucked out on PCB quality.... I dont get what the problem is. Contact is great, temps are fantastic.
I'd run vantage... if I could run vantage. It simply refuses to launch on my system, go figure ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
Going to give 06 a try and see how it goes.
Ok, so just some prelim numbers on my EK block on the XFX HD5870.
Stock settings:
Idle - 3-4c above water temp
Load (Vantage) - 6-7c above water temp
At 1.3v (1021/1298) settings:
Idle - 7-8c above water temp
Load (Vantage) 10-11c above water temp
Overall not to bad, actually pretty pleased with the results so far. I am going to game for awhile and see if temps change, but since my water temp will remain pretty constant I doubt I will see much difference, maybe 1-2c. Tomorrow I am going to see what my max overclock is now that my temps are about 50c lower than stock cooling. For those wondering I am using my chiller for my GPU, so I can keep my water temps slightly below ambient.
spacers are part of the EK-supply for the 4890 and the 5870 cooler ... if you do not use them, I won´t put my money on the lifetime of your card :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jokester_wild
This one is on the way to me:
http://www.a-c-shop.de/Aquacomputer-...ckelt-A-C-Shop
http://www.abload.de/img/1-1o4gq.jpg
I'm trying to find a 5850 block.. any kind.. somewhere.. now!
I don't remember which ones, but some of the manufacturers here have said that their blocks are compatible with both the 5870 and the 5850. It may have been earlier in this thread as a matter of fact, but I'm too lazy to flip back and check ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams
Mines on the way. So I'm looking for the same answers.
think you means 74F not C you would die if C :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by babalouj
I don't go with that, I've been using EK for years and no stand offs. Even difficult cards like the 4870X2 and a year later no problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by scamps
im a user who prefers no standoffs. with my DD 2900xt block, i shaved down the standoffs so i can get better contact. was able to keep the 2900xt at 940Mhz core, using 1.35v at 45C load. while the stock mounting on stock clocks/volts was almost 60C. i prefer to set the pressure myself. i never found it difficult.
if your warping a card without standoffs, then loosen the pressure until the card is no longer warped, then when running a benchmark, watch the temps, and apply pressure between the gpu block and the back of where the gpu is, basically mimic the idea of more pressure exactly on the gpu, if temps drop by a noticeable spike, even 1-2C then you need to/can add more pressure. if nothing changes, you wont see a difference by cranking the screws down.
basically start soft and add a little bit over time until results are no longer gained
Thas funny because people acted like that regarding the GTX280.... not only was mine just fine it also had great temps. Others seemed to be over tightening there cards, I think thats one of the main problems. But like I also said if your getting some really bad PCB quality from a model (which I havent experienced) that would definitely not be beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by scamps
Sooo, I'm guessing you guys that "got it right the first time" believe that guys like CyberDruid, Syrillian among others, are. . .inexperienced? :rolleyes:
No, but everybody makes mistakes. I had that block same as CyberDruid/Syrillian and it was a screw that was too long shorting out the card. I never had the issue, because I always fit fibre washers and short stainless button head screws anyway. Personally I like being able to vary the pressure without the stand offs, I applaud EKs optional 'safe, noob proof mounting system'. Not my words btw.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1189/dscf2900rh9.jpg
i checked those links, the issue had to do with short circuiting, not over tightening and warping/cracking a card. that is an interesting issue, but using standoffs was not going to really change much when other and simpler solutions were available. and they loved the performance once they fixed the shorting issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterlogged