STRIX is better than MATRIX as a cooling solution, not to my surprise. They couldn't beat their own cooler.
Nobody could, not MSI lightning version, nobody.
Paying so much more and getting a worse product in the technical aspect of it is worth no praise, IMO.
I think it depends on what you wanna do .... personally, if it stays confortably below the throttling point don't give much thought to temps. Given the choice of a 1st place finish in temps, noise or fps, I'm more interested in the last two.
From TPU testing .... as in most instances highest core / highest memory OC does not = highest fps.
Matrix finishes tied for 1st in Core OC, 1st in Memory OC, 2nd in fps, highest in power consumption, 4th in temps, 5th in npise and 2nd in fps.
Strix finishes tied 1st in Core OC, 3rd in Memory OC, 5th in fps, tied for lowest in power consumption, tied for 2nd in temps, tied for 3rd on noise and 5th in fps.
Lowest in temps was EVGA (64)
Lowest in noise was MSI Duke (34)
Highest Core OC was a 4 way tie (2115)
Highest in memory was Matrix (2115)
FPS OC Test Results ... most notable thing was the memory ... the two cards with Samsung memory have 10 fps advanatge over the others.
MSI Lightning Z = 236.7
Asus Matrix2080 Ti = 235.0
MSI Gaming X Trio = 226.6
EVGA FTW = 225.2
Asus Strix OC = 225.0
Zotac Amp = 221.5
MSI Duke = 220.5
EVGA X Ultra = 218.0
Founder's = 216.5
Reference = 194.5
Maximum to be gained by springing for AIB = 9.3%
Its not twice as fast its 45% faster on 4K. 45% is not twice as fast.
The Asus 2080TI does also not use half the power, 268w for the VII and 297w for the Asus 2080TI.
I don't much care what thy do outta the box, I think few do ... where it matters is how they gonna do in my box, so I look at it this way:
The Asus 2080TI is more than 100% more expensive so you can say that the VII is a much better buy.
The Reference 2080 Ti scores 90% and the reference Radeon VII gets 65% ... 90 / 65 = 38.5% faster
The Asus Matrix OC = 21.9% OC (235.0 / 192.8 = 1.21888)
The Raden VII OC = 8.2% OC (131.0 / 121.1 = 1.08175)
Asus Matrix Overclocked = 90 x 1.21888 = 109.7
Radeon VII Overclocked = 65 x 131.0 / 121.1 = 70.3
That makes the Matrix Overclocked 56 % faster than the Radeon VII Overclocked @ 4k
If I was to buy a 2080 Ti tho ... it would never be an AIO. Sure we don't see significant throttling below 80C but there are still those little extra 12 - 13 MHz bumps ya get when ya drop below 65 and again at 60 or so. A full cover block will cost less, take up less room and and keep temps around 40C.
If I was buying an 2080Ti then it would be the Strix OC most probably + Full Cover waterblock. I am not though since I find it unacceptable to pay that much and still have current titles that can't play at a steady 60+ FPS @ 4K...
Agreed ... Until we can do 120 fps in most games, 80 fps in all games, won't be looking at 4k.
Way warmer? They're built from the same material, they are both ideally kept around 50-60C. But it's true GPU will be kept closer to 100% usage more often than CPUs if you game a lot.
Perhaps better said "way more heat load" ... Intel CPU outta the box = 90 watts ... 2080 Ti GPU outta the box is around 300 watts.
Intel I7 spits out about 90 watts outta the box and will hit 130 watts with a solid OC. CPU temps will likey be in the high 70s due to the small block mass and limiting factor here is the small area of the CPU contact area.
A 300 watt GFX card will put out 300 watts outta the box but not all of that comes from the GPU, VRMs and memory also contribute a significant load. The larger thermal mass of the block allows for much more efficient thermal transfer which results in much lower GPU temperature... typically in high 30s to low 40s ( I see 39C with fans at 1200 rpm, 42 C at 650 - 750 rpm)
However, the impact on the cooling system is much more pronounced. I also have a MoBo Block so CPU combined will present a heat load of about 175 watts. When running a CPU stress test (highest core = 78C) coolant temps will hardly nudge ... usually a< 2.2 - 2.5 C ... if i run Furmark, I'll jump 8 - 9 C
Whole point of AIO is to remove hot air out of case.
Heat from overclocked graphic card no matter how if stay in case that's disaster.
Advantage of AIO systems is half to keep temps below 60C, half to remove 90% of heat dissipation from graphic card out of case.
And one fan better deal with VRM temps if push air directly on VRM PCB. That's easy task for one 80-90mm fan.
Yes the goal is getting heat out of the case .... it also means a) using the lowest cooling medium available and b) not sucking their air roght back in.
Let's say you sleep in an upstairs bedroom with two windows. Does it matter which window or what direction you put the fan in ? No it does not. If you push pull / 40 cfm out of one window, then 40 cfm MUST come in the other (or thru other openings). All that matters inside the case is total air turnover ... which way the fans blow deoends on their location. You don't want any intake fans near a source of hot air ... say above baseboard heating or anywhere near hot exhaust from PCU or other thiungs that generate heat. When you get a case with:
2 front fan mounts
3 top fan mounts
1 rear fan mount
Large rear grille and vented slot covers
It's a given that the front will be intakes and rear will be exhaust. But consider this (assuming each fan can push 48 cfm "in real life" not the 75 it says on the box).
In the rear, with no inlet filters, the fans will likely deliver close to 48 cfm
In the front, with typical somewhat dusty air inlet filters the fans will deliver about 32 cfm
So 64 in and 48 out, you're fine.... the extra 16 cfm of hot air will go out thru the rear grille and vented slot covers. We
Now put in a 3 x 120 AIO for the CPU and your typical aftermarket GFX card AIO, both blowing out
You now have 2 intake fans bringing in that 64 cfm.
Your 4 exhaust fans will be impacted slightly because the aluminum rads are inefficient and have higher restriction that copper units, but not as much as your dusty inlet filters. So lets call it 40 cfm per fan.
Issue No. 1 you have a 3 x 120mm fans pushing 120 watts of CPU heat thru a radiator and just 1 x 120mm fan pushing 300 watts out thru a radiator ? Whats wrong with this picture ? The CPU AIO is doing 40 watts of work per fan and the GPU is being expected to handle 7-8 times that. Most of ya GFX card heat ..... the great majority of your system heat is not being pulled thru the rads
Issue 2 - You are cooling your components with preheated air ... the interior case air might be say 5C hotter than room temperature. Assuming Ambient (23), case interior (28) and collant AIO temps of (38C), using ambient air is 50% more effective with a Delta T of 15C instead of 10C
Issue No. 3
So your exhaust fan output is 4 x 40 cfm or 160 cfm ... you only have 64 coming in so that leaves .... 96 cfm that ha which will funnel air from the rear of the case into your system... where is that air generally coming from ? Your 750 watt PSU exhaust and your 300 watt GFX card exhaust.
With a better designed case... say 3 intakes in front / 2 on bottom and in side panel, you now have 6 x 32 cfm coming in (192) and 4 x 40 cfm going out (160) leaving the final 32 to get pushed out the rear grille and slot covers and you are fine with exhaust fans on the AIO ... your temps on CPU / GPU won't be as the inside case air is still hotter but ya won't be sucking PSY and GFX card exhaust back into the case.
