We start with thermal testing to compare AMD's reference Radeon HD 7970 to Arctic's Accelero Xtreme III with EKWB's copper shim, Arctic's Accelero Xtreme 7970, and Deepcool's Dracula 7970.

The Dracula 7970 and Accelero Xtreme 7970 perform almost identically, posting excellent sub-60-degree results under load. When you consider the reference cooler approaches 80 degrees, the improvement is quite impressive.
As we might have expected, adding a shim between the heat sink and GPU takes a toll on efficiency, yielding a mere eight-degree improvement over AMD's vapor chamber, and trailing the Accelero Xtreme 7970 by 14 degrees.

All of the aftermarket coolers generate comparable acoustic results. This is something we would expect from the Dracula, since its power source doesn't change (hence, there is no fan ramp). Nevertheless, the three models perform well enough to shine a spotlight on the reference design's weakness: noise.
In contrast, we would have thought that Artic's cooler would have demonstrated more variable measurements. We are able to force a 100% duty cycle using AMD's driver, and we know it's possible to spin the Accelero's fans up because we can hear the difference. Thus, we can conclude that the fan profile on the Radeon HD 7970 doesn't impose significantly higher fan speeds until the GPU temperature rises above 68 degrees.
This surely looks impressive (giant graphics card and oversize heat cooler), but is this "eye candy" for the technically inclined PC enthusiast really moving forward, or just another pile of copper pipes sold at a price established out of pure value perception? This article got me thinking... Are we unknowingly creating a market demand for cooling products that make little sense in the grand scheme of things, nor shows little technological advancement? Why do we get so excited when a graphics card becomes so hot during peak operation that it requires cooling beyond standard specification. In engineering terms, any system that transforms such a large amount of electrical energy into heat as a side effect would be considered inefficient. By creating a market for "aftermarket" cooling, we do not only show our tolerance for inefficiency, but also create a booming demand for lackluster "solutions".
But, would be nice to see the coolers compared to some mainstream solutions. IE the HIS IceQ X2 or Sapphire Toxic, etc. etc.
But, would be nice to see the coolers compared to some mainstream solutions. IE the HIS IceQ X2 or Sapphire Toxic, etc. etc.
btw nice article
This surely looks impressive (giant graphics card and oversize heat cooler), but is this "eye candy" for the technically inclined PC enthusiast really moving forward, or just another pile of copper pipes sold at a price established out of pure value perception? This article got me thinking... Are we unknowingly creating a market demand for cooling products that make little sense in the grand scheme of things, nor shows little technological advancement? Why do we get so excited when a graphics card becomes so hot during peak operation that it requires cooling beyond standard specification. In engineering terms, any system that transforms such a large amount of electrical energy into heat as a side effect would be considered inefficient. By creating a market for "aftermarket" cooling, we do not only show our tolerance for inefficiency, but also create a booming demand for lackluster "solutions".
this applys to all mid-high end nvidia/ati(amd) video cards
That's how you transfer heat from the shim to the unmodified Accelero III. I wonder if JB Weld would work better...although that would permanently attach the shim to the Accelero III.
@cilliers
The value is in the noise reduction at load. These processors run hot because they are doing a great deal of work pushing electrons around. Consider that incandescent bulbs work the same way - the friction causes the filament to get so hot that it glows. If you don't want a thermally hot/power hungry card for philosophical reasons, then don't buy one.
@W(h)yKnott
I imagine that "Dracula" is intended to connote sucking the heat away from the 79xx. The fact that these tests show that they are relatively inefficient at doing so makes for a humorous double entendre, like your handle.
Unless you don't like not burning the GPU, pretty much. You might get away without it, but temps would be far higher. Maybe if you really lapped the cooler and shim you could get away with it, but I'd doubt that using no thermal paste at all would be a good idea even in that situation.
Absolutely. If you don't, contact wouldn't be uniform and you'd have dead spots.
Thermal paste is important, but the trick is to use as little as necessary, not to slather on gobs.
Its very unlikely that someone with such card is going to have air cooling "upgrade", since the WC setups are afordable. If that person wants to get better cooling solution, he wouldnt spend money on air cooling, just throwing on it an radiator or connect the GPU block to an existing radiator would be sufficient, better for looks, and better performance.
If I had a card that used 1000 watts of power but was ten times faster than the Radeon 7970 in every way, it would still be the most energy efficient graphics card in the world today. I also don't think that after-market VGA cooling is a booming market for lackluster solutions. The after market VGA cooling industry probably isn't booming because even the minority of overclockers in this world tend to not use an aftermarket cooler on their graphics card(s). Even then, just because there are some lackluster solutions doesn't mean that they sell nearly as well as the good solutions.
I buy aftermarket coolers for noise reduction only, I can't stand a loud computer. Now my machine is so quiet, it's hard to tell whether it's off or on, even when it's under load.
And having more efficient hardware wouldn't help with the noise, the OEMs would just put smaller coolers and smaller/faster fans, so noise output would be similar.
Review the dracula with two 140mm fans or three 120mm fans as the design was intended, to show optimal performance.
Overclock as far as you can with each design so we can see the value added to the card.
Without that information this entire article is pointless, and leads to dumba$$ comments like 'why dracula, because it sucks?'
How about review the design as it was meant to be used?
*And what kind of a tech journalist doesn't have a few spare 120/140mm fans laying around? WTF!!!
The 7970 doesn't NEED more, temps were awesome. Noise, space, and cost also comes into play.
You think a slight temperature difference between the Dracula and Accelero will affect the overclock? That's just silly. Limits will be set by voltage unless temps are astronomical.
Overdramatic complaint is overdramatic.
OC most silicon chips, and they will lose efficiency.