ASUS ROG Strix Radeon RX 5700 XT OC Detailed Some More

[Juventas]

Why no USB-C with DisplayPort like the ROG Strix GeForce GTX 2070 has?

 

[eidairaman1]

Best Spec so far, waiting for the top of the line Sapphire and Gigabyte version.

Gigabyte pffftttt

For what reason? No load, very little heat, no noise. What's not to like?!

Higher idle

 

[TheMadDutchDude]

So what? The idle temps aren’t an issue.

You really can’t please anyone these days.

“Chipset has a fan! WTFOMGBBQBLEERERUGH!”

Fan present but runs at 0% to conserve energy/lower noise levels...

OMGWTFBBQQQQWHYISTHISATHING?!??


My oh my, people...

 

[EatingDirt]

One thing I don't like about modern cards is the zero fan policy.

Now I'm not sure how Nvidia does it, but you can change that with 5 clicks through the interface with AMD. Gaming > Global Settings > Global Wattman > Custom Plan > Zero Fan off. With most custom cards, changing the fan profile at all will turn Zero Fan off.

Higher idle

Zero fan starts at, what, 50-55c for any Zero fan card? Higher idle is meaningless when idle is 50-55c, that's nothing. It's not even hot enough to stress an electronic component unless it's made out of some sort of newly invented electrical butter.

 

[gamefoo21]

Idling a card at 30'C with the fans idling at non-audible levels gives you a big benefit over a card soaked at 50'C. That benefit is thermal capacity, its going to run hotter and louder at loud than a card with slow idle fans.

Not keen on the Asus tweaker software lock out on the overclock.

 

[Vya Domus]

Why no USB-C with DisplayPort like the ROG Strix GeForce GTX 2070 has?

Not much use for it ?

 

[Frick]

aFn at minimum, noise is nonexistent but my idle temp is 15+C lower?

Does that matter at all? I mean really? I don't know for sure, but I can't think of a single reason why it would be bad for the card. Well possibly dust accumulation if it sits at idle for most of the time.

Idling a card at 30'C with the fans idling at non-audible levels gives you a big benefit over a card soaked at 50'C. That benefit is thermal capacity, its going to run hotter and louder at loud than a card with slow idle fans.

Why?

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry for only OT.. but there is some misinformation here...

The Sapphire Nitro Vega 64 came with a zero fan policy. The GPU would be in the high 40s to low 50s. When gaming it would go into the high 70s and low 80s and the fans would spin like crazy. As a result there was always heat in my case due to the GPU. I could feel it coming out of the top of the case even when just watching a video. It wasn't until 1 year ago that Wattman allowed you to disable that and run the fans. By that time I had already gone for a water block (and i am not looking back). On top of that a lot of MB have NVME ports under the GPU and they also produce heat.

You do realize that if you started at 30C instead of 40/50c youd still end up with the same ending temp, right? A heatsink's cooling properties doesnt change because it starts out warmer...it still is able to remove the same amount of heat. It will saturate a bit faster, but at the same wattage and fan speed, it will end at the same temp regardless where it is on idle.

All enabling the fans did was spread the heat out. At idle, you are still cooling the same amount of wattage.

Idling a card at 30'C with the fans idling at non-audible levels gives you a big benefit over a card soaked at 50'C. That benefit is thermal capacity, its going to run hotter and louder at loud than a card with slow idle fans.

this is flat out wrong.. sorry.

 

[kapone32]

Sorry for only OT.. but there is some misinformation here...

You do realize that if you started at 30C instead of 40/50c youd still end up with the same ending temp, right? A heatsink's cooling properties doesnt change because it starts out warmer...it still is able to remove the same amount of heat. It will saturate a bit faster, but at the same wattage and fan speed, it will end at the same temp regardless where it is on idle.

Well I do understand that argument but with my cooling my crossfire cards idle at 25 C each. I have always had crossfire. When I had the original heatsink on the Sapphire card I also had the Gigabyte Gaming Vega 64 I would see that card idle at 27C and not get above 65C. The Sapphire card on the other hand would be in the high 40s low 50s and go up to the low 80s. Now I know that Water cooling can't be compared but now no card goes above 49 C even after a heavy gaming session.

 

[EarthDog]

You've again managed to bork a quote and respond inside of it...

Well I do understand that argument but with my cooling my crossfire cards idle at 25 C each. I have always had crossfire. When I had the original heatsink on the Sapphire card I also had the Gigabyte Gaming Vega 64 I would see that card idle at 27C and not get above 65C. The Sapphire card on the other hand would be in the high 40s low 50s and go up to the low 80s. Now I know that Water cooling can't be compared but now no card goes above 49 C even after a heavy gaming session.

I'd imagine the hotter running card was the top card... heat rises and the top card is always hotter. Elementary.

This is science/physics/thermodynamics bud. All other things the same, with a higher idle, you will reach your saturation point/equilibrium faster, but it doesn't run any hotter. It makes zero sense how it would do so when the cooling properties of the cooler do not change.

 

[kapone32]

You've again managed to bork a quote and respond inside of it...

I'd imagine the hotter running card was the top card... heat rises and the top card is always hotter.

This is science/physics/thermodynamics bud.

With a higher idle, you will reach your saturation point/equilibrium faster, but it doesn't run any hotter.

If the cards were vertical yes, the cards sit horizontal and have air flow from the front 200MM fans. I don't mean with those PCI_E extension cables either.

 

[EarthDog]

If the cards were vertical yes, the cards sit horizontal and have air flow from the front 200MM fans. I don't mean with those PCI_E extension cables either.

I know the case and the setup now..

That said, my point still stands. You are comparing two different cards and coolers trying to make a point... but because it is two different GPUs (I get they are both V64's, but each core is different even with the same cooler) with two different coolers you can't compare unlike things.

 

[kapone32]

I know the case and the setup now..

That said, my point still stands. You are comparing two different cards and coolers trying to make your point... but because it is two different GPUs with two different coolers you can't compare unlike things.

The major difference for me was that I could enable a fan policy on the Gigabyte card but had no option on the Sapphire card. As I stated before once I went to water my temps are the exact same and I am actually using a XFX Vega 64 (no block for the Gigabyte card) now too. I do know what you mean but with the triple fans and super thick heatsink on the Sapphire card it should have been cooler than the Gigabyte card. I stand by my original post that I am not a fan of zero fan policy due to excess ambient heat.

 

[EarthDog]

I don't know what your water has to do with this thread...lol.

There could be so many reasons it wasn't cooler... but one of them WASN'T the fact that it had zero fan capabilities.

You can not be a fan of the zero fan functionality, but know you are moving the same amount of heat (wattage) away. enabling the fans just 'diluted' the hot spot a bit causing more turbulence in the case which allows the airFLOW to get it out.


Anyway, I digress... the take away here is that zero fan does not change the capabilities of the heatsink. It will get to its saturation point faster, but it will not have higher temps (again all other things remaining the same). It's OK to dislike it, but do so for fundamentally sound reasons.

 

[kapone32]

I don't know what your water has to do with this thread...lol.

There could be so many reasons it wasn't cooler... but one of them WASN'T the fact that it had zero fan capabilities.

You can not be a fan of the zero fan functionality, but know you are moving the same amount of heat (wattage) away. enabling the fans just 'diluted' the hot spot a bit causing more turbulence in the case which allows the airFLOW to get it out.


Anyway, I digress... the take away here is that zero fan does not change the capabilities of the heatsink. It will get to its saturation point faster, but it will not have higher temps (again all other things remaining the same). It's OK to dislike it, but do so for fundamentally sound reasons.

I really want to agree with you but for Vega having the HBM and GPU on the same die is part of the problem with zero fan.The fact that fans respond to temp based on speed meant that they would spin at super high RPM for the entire session to do what you are saying instead of a nice curve. Think of it this way if they had zero fan policy on CPUs (I doubt that could even work) the CPU would idle in the 50s or even 60s ( I actually tried that once just installing the heatsink on the CPU) and eventually shutdown within minutes. With a fan(s) they would probably start at 80% and jump to 100% speed anytime you did anything. So yes the heatsink does not make a difference but air flow is necessary for optimal performance (even in idle).

 

[EarthDog]

I really want to agree with you but for Vega having the HBM and GPU on the same die is part of the problem with zero fan.The fact that fans respond to temp based on speed meant that they would spin at super high RPM for the entire session to do what you are saying instead of a nice curve.

I have no idea what your point is here. Regardless if you start off at 50C zero fan and let the curve do it or start off lower and let the curve do it, the GPU temp on load will be the same. I'm going to get some caffeine because I can't make heads or tails of your point and the relevance here.

Just because you put a CPU below a heatsink doesn't change thermodynamics/physics/science. A higher idle temps due to zero fan on idle will not change load temps!!!!!

ANyway, done here... I just wanted to correct the misinformation presented. There really isn't much of a discussion to have. You believe it (and science/how it works) or you don't. I have an open mind, but the information presented is purely anecdotal and loaded with other variables which throw off the thinking.

EDIT: It's funny watching the lemmings thank your posts...the clown car of ignorance is filling up fast!

 

[Juventas]

Not much use for it ?

It's useful for VR. And if you never use VR, and you need a third monitor, it can still be used for that. There's no reason not to IMHO.

 

[Vya Domus]

Thermal capacity is constant.

It's useful for VR. And if you never use VR, and you need a third monitor, it can still be used for that. There's no reason not to IMHO.

Unfortunately those aren't very common use cases, or at the very least not common enough.