Page 1:Can A Liquid-Cooled Radeon R9 290 Be Affordable?
Page 2:CryoVenom R9 290: Meet The Card
Page 3:Test Hardware And Benchmark Settings
Page 5:Results: 3DMark
Page 6:Results: Tomb Raider And F1 2012
Page 7:Results: Arma 3
Page 8:Results: Battlefield 4
Page 9:Results: Far Cry 3
Page 10:Results: Metro: Last Light
Page 11:Power, Heat, And Efficiency
Page 12:Making A Value Case For Water-Cooling A GPU
Results: Arma 3
Both Radeon R9 290 graphics cards appear bottlenecked by platform components at 1920x1080. Adding a couple of monitors helps the water-cooled card stand out, though. Even with both cards set to stock frequencies, and benchmarking in an exceedingly chilly lab, the air-cooled board appears to pull back on its peak performance.
Frame rates remain smooth through our Arma 3 test using standard quality settings.
Average frame rates look terribly close to the minimums we measured under the influence of Arma 3's Ultra quality preset, necessitating a closer look at frame-rates over time.
The lowest I'm willing to go is 20 FPS. Yet, even the stock-clocked boards maintain more than 25 FPS. The CryoVenom’s victory is a little hollow here.
- Can A Liquid-Cooled Radeon R9 290 Be Affordable?
- CryoVenom R9 290: Meet The Card
- Test Hardware And Benchmark Settings
- Results: 3DMark
- Results: Tomb Raider And F1 2012
- Results: Arma 3
- Results: Battlefield 4
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: Metro: Last Light
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- Making A Value Case For Water-Cooling A GPU