Skip to main content

EKWB Wasted No Time Preparing A Fury X Water Block

EKWB is one of the leading water cooling companies on the planet, and it often has support for the latest cards fairly quickly. The company wasted no time at all getting ready for AMD's new Fury cards.

In a short teaser post on Facebook, EKWB showed off the validation sample of its upcoming EK-FC R9 Fury X water block. Thanks to the single row of display outputs that AMD has used for the Fury X, EKWB is able to offer a true single slot solution.

As you can see from the image, a larger percentage of the block itself is simply made of acrylic. With HBM memory, the surface area that needs to be cooled is much smaller than traditional GPU setups.

The company teased that the blocks would be available next week in "all flavors." EKWB generally releases copper and nickel-plated copper versions, each with the option of acrylic or acetal tops, so expect four variations next week.

Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

  • jaber2
    I am dying to see a benchmark on these new cards, I hope AMD does not disappoint
    Reply
  • uglyduckling81
    lol, in case your not happy with a very effective water cooler included you can put a different one on. I understand that it's nice to have it all in one system but it seems to me this should be targeted at the Fury not the Fury X. It probably does fit the Fury as well in all honesty. I still find it amusing.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    lol, in case your not happy with a very effective water cooler included you can put a different one on. I understand that it's nice to have it all in one system but it seems to me this should be targeted at the Fury not the Fury X. It probably does fit the Fury as well in all honesty. I still find it amusing.
    If you already have a water cool set up with multiple radiators, it makes perfect sense to not want to use the all in one included with the card(where am I going to stick that extra fan...). Just give me a card with universal barbs and I am good to go. On second though though, my 7970 has aged pretty well, still not seeing a reason to step up, it does spend most of it time off as well.
    Reply
  • scolaner
    I am dying to see a benchmark on these new cards, I hope AMD does not disappoint

    ...would you settle for a full review? ;)

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196.html
    Reply
  • clonazepam
    lol, in case your not happy with a very effective water cooler included you can put a different one on. I understand that it's nice to have it all in one system but it seems to me this should be targeted at the Fury not the Fury X. It probably does fit the Fury as well in all honesty. I still find it amusing.

    Well, based on some benchmarks, you clearly need two of these for optimal 4K gaming, at which point, many would be scratching their heads while staring at their cases... two separate 120 rads+fans? How long are the attached hoses?
    Reply
  • duckandchicken
    AMD should use this EKWB block as ref design :D then people 99% would get Fury X :D cause they would forget that Fury X lag behind 980Ti in DX11
    Reply
  • rdc85
    The stock AIO cooler in furyX is not bad (quite good actually), but we custom loop is much more potent and arguably more good looking...

    also stock one is have the tube via the end of card
    adding unnecessary length to the card..

    If me, I may keep the stock rad, fans, and tube since they good quality,
    resell the pump & block...
    Reply
  • hobbsmeerkat
    I really like the fact that this makes the Fury X a singe-slot card. Also, we know that BIOS hacks are coming, and it'd be nice to see some early attempts to overclock HBM once given the extra cooling. and I suspect with Fury Pro we might see some more overclocking options, given the custom PCBs, but we'll have to see when they launch in July.
    Reply
  • leeb2013
    What's the point when temps are low already and all the reviewers are struggling to get even a 5% overclock?
    Reply
  • PaulBags
    I like the slimer profile, a shame the closed loop reference wasn't single slot.
    Reply