- May 2, 2017
- 6,324 (3.42/day)
- Norway, currently in Lund, Sweden
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 7 5800X|
|Motherboard||ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax|
|Cooling||Aquanaut + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14|
|Memory||32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14|
|Video Card(s)||PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UV@950mV/2050MHz/180W|
|Storage||2TB Adata SX8200 Pro|
|Display(s)||Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary|
|Audio Device(s)||Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3|
|Power Supply||Corsair SF750 Platinum|
|Keyboard||Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
Yep, and so far we've yet to see any conclusive proof that the Fury X had widespread pump failure issues (nor any evidence to indicate that if it had such an issue, it was down to thermals and not something like a poorly designed pump). It definitely had pump whine issues as you brought up - that was widely reported even in the initial reviews - but that is entirely unrelated to thermally induced pump failure. You're also right that the off-the-shelf AIOs do lower the thermal input to the loop, though at least some of those integrate the VRAM into the loop in various ways (either through enlarged cold plates or some kind of intermediate VRAM plate that makes contact with the cold plate), so that calculation isn't quite as cut-and-dried - particularly when these models were very directly geared towards overclocking.View attachment 227204View attachment 227205
Do you see there is that fan on the GPU shroud? they are to cool the VRAM and VRM. Those AIO only cool the GPU, that means only ~200W is dumped into the loop (with 250W TGP)
Whereas the full 350W is dumped into the loop with the 6900XT LC, just like FuryX.
There are shockingly few reviews from this era with GPU power measurements, but 1080 Tis exceeding 250W and nearing 300W from the factory was relatively common, as seen in TPU's reviews (1, 2, 3). Manual OC's would push them above 300W relatively easily - and those cards were widely known to be easy to OC. And yes, some of that heat would be exhausted by the VRM fan, but a well configured VRM is >90% efficient, so the majority of power will be going through the AIO. In the end, the thermal difference between an AIO-cooled 1080 Ti and a Fury X is quite small, in the low tens of watts. Also, you're neglecting the fact that the Fury X has a much thicker radiator than both of those pictured cards - and likely a much more powerful fan (as EVGA's fans have been known to perform rather poorly on radiators, and Gentle Typhoons are still pretty high up performance charts.
Hm, that's interesting. Makes me wonder what changes around that level - whether it passes some threshold for permeation, whether that's where you start seeing the pump's "ambient" temperature (casing, block) run too high for it to be able to keep itself cool. Still, he confirms what I said in the previous post though: "We know 60°C is good, we've done extensive testing to ensure that 60°C is what will create a lasting unit." So from what they're saying, passing 60°C is bad, but running at 60°C should be no problem at all.At 60C and above liquid temp, these Asetek AIO are gonna fail rather quick, as mentioned by Asetek engineer (at 6:50)
To be clear, I would definitely not run a water loop that hot, nor do I consider that okay for an AIO, but he's pretty clear on that being "safe" for a "lasting unit" in the interview. That doesn't change the fact that the 63°C seen in that 6900 XT LC review is way too hot (whether it's an Asetek design or not), but it does say something about how little AIOs are affected by fluid temperature.
I still think it looks like the 6900 XT LC is drastically misconfigured in how slow it runs its fan, and I really hope that's not how they're supposed to run - even a moderate speed increase would be a significant improvement there. It's no wonder the thing is struggling to stay cool when it's trying to cool nearly 350W with a single 120mm fan running at 1300rpm.
Seems like I know more about watercooling than you do
Man, thanks for the laugh. I mean, jesus, you can't help yourself, can you? You were making dumb assumptions about the specific reasons why I run an UV profile on my GPU. You were completely and utterly wrong, and now have egg on your face. Responding to that with "Seems like I know more about watercooling than you do" ... wow. That's some grade school level defensiveness and deflection. Rather than make yourself look even worse, I would really suggest toning it down a few notches. Seriously. Can we at least try to have an adult discussion here? You've been pelting me with personal attacks for a while now. It only undermines what you're trying to argue. Please stop.