AMD Radeon R9 295X2 review
The fastest graphics card we’ve ever reviewed, but it’s also the most expensive by far
Specifications
GPU: 2x Radeon R9 290X, Memory: 8GB GDDR5, Graphics card length: 304
The AMD Radeon R9 295X2 is a single card that uses two Radeon R9 290X graphics processors (GPUs) in tandem to provide astonishingly high graphics performance. The R9 295X2 has 8GB of graphics memory in total, but this is shared between the two GPUs, with each having access to 4,096MB. Even so, 4,096MB is an impressive amount of graphics memory for a single GPU card, so having that amount available for each GPU is a boon. The memory runs at 1,250MHz, which isn’t particularly fast, but isn’t slow either, and we certainly had no complaints.
As the card squeezes so many high-end components into such a small area it gets very hot, and the R9 295X2 uses liquid cooling to combat this heat. This means that if you buy the R9 295X2 you’ll have to make sure you can accommodate the card’s external radiator and fan, as well as the card itself, in your case. The liquid cooler is audible but fairly quiet.
To make use of the two GPUs in the R9 295X2 you must enable CrossFire mode, but this is no more difficult than enabling the option in AMD Catalyst Control Centre, the driver-cum-setup utility for all AMD Radeon graphics cards.
Unsurprisingly, the card performed well in our challenging Crysis 3 graphics benchmark, producing an astounding average frame rate of 72.6fps at 1,920×1,080 with graphics quality set to Ultra and 4x anti-aliasing. The maximum frame rate at these settings was 104fps and the minimum was 72.3fps, making this result all the more impressive. Indeed, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti produced an average frame rate of 56fps under the same conditions, which shows just how powerful the R9 295X2 is.
Of course, no-one would buy an R9 295X2 to play games at a resolution of 1,920×1,080 when a much cheaper card would be satisfactory. We ran the same test at a resolution of 3,840×2,160 (Ultra HD) and were more than happy to see an average frame rate of 42.
2fps with a maximum of 50fps and minimum of 36fps. Even with graphics quality set to Very High the R9 295X2 produced an average 28.4fps.
If you buy an AMD Radeon R9 295X2 you’ll have no problem playing the latest games at the highest resolutions and settings for some time. The R9 295X2 is, however, twice the price of an Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti but doesn’t provide twice the performance. We think the GTX 780 Ti is the better buy, but if you want the most powerful card you can currently buy then you should get the R9 295X2.
| Hardware | ||
|---|---|---|
| Slots taken up | 2 | |
| GPU | 2x Radeon R9 290X | |
| GPU cores | 5,632 | |
| GPU clock speed | 947 | |
| GPU clock boost speed | 1018 | |
| Memory | 8GB GDDR5 | |
| Memory interface | 512-bit | |
| Max memory bandwidth | 320GB/s | |
| Memory speed | Graphics card length | 304 |
| DVI outputs | 1 | |
| D-sub outputs | 0 | |
| HDMI outputs | 0 | |
| Mini HDMI outputs | 0 | |
| DisplayPort outputs | 0 | |
| Mini DisplayPort outputs | 4 | |
| Power leads required | 2x 8-pin PCI Express | |
| Accessories | none | |
AMD Radeon R9 295X2 review
11.
5 teraflops in a single GPU — now that’s power. Hot on the heels of the reveal of Nvidia’s mammoth $3000 Titan-Z, AMD has completed work on its own halo product — the Radeon R9 295X2. It has much in common with its competitor: it brings together two top-of-the-line GPUs into one graphics card, effectively cramming two R9 290Xs into a single product. AMD says that this card is meant for the ultra high-end enthusiast — those who crave top-end performance at 4K resolution.
But it’s in the differences with Titan-Z where we see the 295X2 come into its own. Cost-wise, there’s no competition. At $1500, it’s half the price of Nvidia’s upcoming offering. It also comes with the first hybrid air/liquid cooling solution found in a reference graphics card — and it needs it. AMD’s Hawaii chip is one of the most powerful GPUs on the market, but it also consumes a large amount of power, and produces excessive amounts of heat. It’s rated to operate at 95 degrees Celsius, and in the 290 and 290X, it will sit at that high temperature under load, often throttling performance in the sub-optimal reference design.
Two of these things in a single card sounds like a recipe for disaster, but the extreme cooling solution utilised in the 295X2 is remarkable: mounted in a case and subject to heavy load, temperatures barely hit the 70 degrees Celsius barrier. In fact, the cooling is so good that AMD even bumped up the card’s clock speed a tad over the standard single-chip R9 290X and lowered max operating temperature by a full 20 degrees, down to 75 Celsius.
Taking a look at the card itself reveals how this was done. In addition to the standard heatsink and fan, the 295X2 includes a closed-loop water-cooling system provided by specialist Asetek. Twin pipes emerge from the shroud, linking up to a radiator arrangement that you attach to a 120mm fan placement on your chassis. Gone are the days of simply slotting in the GPU and attaching some power cables — this requires a touch more effort. However, the end result is a cool GPU and a card that’s actually quieter than the R9 290X in its performance-sapping ‘quiet’ mode.
In our case, the power supply fan was actually louder — perhaps not surprising, bearing in mind that AMD recommends a 1000W PSU.
In terms of build quality, this is an enormous departure from AMD’s recent, somewhat lacking reference designs — it features an anodised aluminium shroud, quality heatsink and decent fan, and even the back of the board itself is hard, durable metal. Red LEDs highlight the cooling and the Radeon branding. This may not quite match the aesthetics of Nvidia’s top-end products, but it looks the part and the cooling performance speaks for itself.
Caption
Attribution
Connections are impressive, if minimalist. There’s a single dual-link DVI socket and four mini DisplayPorts. There’s a lack of HDMI here, but given AMD’s contention that this is not meant for 1080p/1440p/1600p gamers, that’s perhaps understandable — though we don’t agree with the premise.
Regardless, the ability to drive five different displays from a single card will probably be useful, especially given AMD’s focus on its EyeFinity multi-monitor technology.
We went into testing the R9 295X2 with some level of scepticism. After the frame-pacing issues were fully revealed, AMD lost a lot of confidence with the high-end enthusiast — and with good reason. Despite posting stunning benchmarks, frame analysis revealed that AMD’s CrossFire tech had fundamental issues — a good proportion of frames that were processed by the GPU were either displayed for a split second or never displayed at all. An initial driver fix was supposed to address the issue, but in our Radeon HD 7990 review we still found unsatisfactory performance — in essence, there were moments where the 7990 would act just like a single-GPU card, nullifying the whole point of the product — in our testing this wasn’t so much micro-stutter as macro-stutter. The 7990 annihilated GTX Titan in terms of raw benchmarks, but the single GPU simply produced more consistent, reliable performance, quickly becoming the enthusiast’s choice until the GTX 780 and GTX 780 Ti arrived.
Going into this 295X2 review, then, we had a number of objectives, principal among them discovering to what extent this card can run high-end games at 4K resolution as close to 60fps as possible. On top of that, while AMD is consciously pushing us away from using the 295X2 for lower resolutions, we wanted to see just how powerful the card was at 1080p and 2.5K. Next, we wanted to re-evaluate CrossFire to see whether AMD’s attempts to fix the frame-pacing problems have actually worked this time — and by extension, whether a dual GPU product operates as it should. And finally, we wanted to put the whole focus of the «halo product» into perspective. Does the inflated price point actually make sense here? Or would you be better off buying two GPUs and saving a ton of money into the bargain?
First up, we benchmarked the new cards across the three major high-end resolutions: 1920×1080 (1080p), 2560×1440 (1440p) and finally, full 4K — 3840×2160. AMD suggests that the higher the resolution, the more effective the GPU becomes.
4K is effectively four times the resolution of 1080p, but the argument is that you won’t see a 4x hit to frame-rates. Certainly, the wide 512-bit memory buses attached to both of the Hawaii GPUs coupled with the large 4GB of GDDR5 available to each core should ensure that the video memory is there, along with a wide enough pipe to keep the shaders serviced. Here are our results — based on presets ramped up to the max. We use FCAT analysis for all GPU benchmarks. This effectively uses video captures to properly ascertain performance, ensuring that what you see on-screen is what is being analysed.
«What quickly becomes evident in our tests is that at 1080p and even 1440p, we often hit CPU limits. Bearing in mind we’re running six Intel cores at 4.4GHz, that’s highly impressive stuff.»
The Radeon R9 295X2 put through its paces across six different games at max settings with v-sync off. Running the games unlocked sees us hit the GPU limit — assuming CPU doesn’t get in the way first, as you’ll see on Battlefield 4.
Here we compare 1080p, 1440p and 4K performance across the same scenes.
| Radeon R9 295X | 1080p | 1440p | 4K |
|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite, Ultra+DDOF | 149.0fps | 108.1fps | 58.2fps |
| Tomb Raider, Ultimate, TressFX | 151.5fps | 107.1fps | 55.7fps |
| Metro Last Light, Very High, SSAA | 74.0fps | 50.8fps | 26.4fps |
| Call of Duty Ghosts, Extra, SMAA | 118.0fps | 99.4fps | 63.7fps |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra | 85.0fps | 76.6fps | 45.2fps |
| Crysis 3, Very High, 2x SMAA | 101.6fps | 69.0fps | 31.5fps |
AMD’s argument that this is a 4K card — and that 1080p and 1440p are well served by the R9 290 and 290X — is correct up to a point. Assuming 60fps is the cut-off point, we see the R9 295X2 more than double that target in many games.
However, if you have a 120Hz display and you want to target 120fps at 1080p, the card clearly delivers. And let’s not forget the importance of minimum frame-rates — dips below 60fps are far more noticeable than the theoretical maximums, which dissolve into a blur of torn frames on a 60Hz monitor.
Arguably, the sweet spot here is at 1440p, where in most cases we have the performance to hit and sustain 60fps with only minor settings management required to ensure a locked experience on most games. To give some idea of the raw power on offer here, check out our specific Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 gameplay analyses below — top-end settings, 1440p and 60fps combine to produce a magical experience.
At 4K we see a big hit to performance, but clearly 4x the pixel throughput of 1080p is not resulting in a 4x hit to frame-rates. There is scalability here, but the benchmark scores suggest to us that ramping up quality settings to the maximum is not the solution. Dial back some settings and performance rises enormously.
Take Thief’s very high settings, for example — this includes super-sampling anti-aliasing (effectively rendering at a much higher resolution, then downscaling). Remove that from the equation and the average frame-rate increases from 25fps up to 40fps. Similarly with Metro Last Light, our reported 26fps increases to 46.5fps by removing SSAA.
The results throw up some more curiosities — notably that even with 11.5 teraflops of power available, Call of Duty: Ghosts can still dip well below 1080p60 (the graphs here — both frame-rate and frame-time — need to be seen to believed) — suffice to say that this is the first and last time we use this title for benchmarking. Secondly, we don’t see an enormous difference between Battlefield 4’s 1080p and 1440p scores, suggesting a CPU bottleneck. Finally, we noted that on the driver provided, Thief only seems to use one GPU — something that is curious bearing in mind that the game is CrossFire-capable, and works just fine on our R9 290 dual GPU set-up.
This does illustrate an additional problem you may face with a multi-GPU card: games require bespoke support. It’s usually implemented, but sometimes issues can occur — a situation you won’t be facing on a single-chip graphics product.
«By comparing the R9 295X2 with the single-GPU R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti, we get some idea of scaling and we can compare frame-pacing.»
It’s rare to see a true doubling of performance over the R9 290X, even at 1440p, but the gap between the dual and single GPUs is clearly very significant.
| 2560×1440 | R9 295X | R9 290X | GTX 780 Ti |
|---|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite, Ultra+DDOF | 108.1fps | 60.4fps | 77.7fps |
| Tomb Raider, Ultimate, TressFX | 107.1fps | 56.4fps | 60.8fps |
| Metro Last Light, Very High, SSAA | 50.8fps | 29.0fps | 31.4fps |
| Call of Duty Ghosts, Extra, SMAA | 99. 4fps |
69.3fps | 74.7fps |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra | 76.6fps | 45.8fps | 48.8fps |
| Crysis 3, Very High, 2x SMAA | 69.0fps | 44.1fps | 44.4fps |
Frame-pacing is also fixed. To illustrate this, here we re-run the 1440p tests, comparing performance with the Radeon R9 290X and the Nidia GTX 780 Ti. It’s worth bearing in mind that two cards can never offer quite the same level of consistency as a single card, but the frame-pacing solution AMD has devised is very good — and we’d suggest that it’s a close match now for Nvidia’s solution. There’s clearly a lot of frame variance in many of these tests, and «runt frames» (those processed but essentially unseen on-screen) are very occasionally present, but they’re pretty rare.
We’ve reached a level now where extreme high-end performance usually comes with a price point to match. Nvidia’s GTX Titan set the precedent, but even the more value-minded AMD will ramp up prices for its top-end products.
In actual gameplay conditions, we doubt many people could tell the difference between R9 290 and R9 290X performance, so we decided to try out the 295X2 up against a ‘budget’ solution — namely two R9 290s in CrossFire.
This alternative solution saves you hundreds of Euros/dollars/pounds compared to buying the single card — though obviously you miss out on the compact nature of the 295X2, not to mention the custom cooler. We ran the same benchmarks again (omitting Thief since it didn’t seem to work properly on the 295X2) at 1440p and 4K, again using FCAT to measure the outputs.
We also gave the GTX 780 in SLI a short test but quickly discovered that extreme resolutions and extreme settings (like SSAA) can quickly see you hit the 3GB GDDR5 limit per card, draining performance significantly. Where Nvidia does command a clear advantage is in power efficiency. Two 780s in SLI hit a maximum of 710W drawn from the wall when used in combination with our 4.4GHz overclocked i7-3930K.
The R9 295X2 saw that hit around 800-810W while the R9 290 CrossFire set-up hit 850W. You’re going to need a well-ventilated case to dissipate that level of heat.
«Our tests suggest that two R9 290s in CrossFire offers a vast proportion of the power supplied by the 295X2, but you lose out on the compact nature of the dual-GPU card — not to mention its remarkable cooling set-up.»
Can you get the ballpark power of the R9 295X2 with an existing CrossFire solution? Here we benchmark the new card against two R9 290s in CrossFire, demonstrating that there is a cheaper option — albeit one that is larger, hotter and a touch less power-efficient.
Alternative Video Benchmarks:
- 1440p Radeon R9 295X2 vs. CrossFire R9 290 Benchmarks
| 1440p/4K | R9 295X | R9 290 CrossFire |
|---|---|---|
| BioShock Infinite, Ultra+DDOF | 108.1fps/58.2fps | 108.1fps/56.3fps |
| Tomb Raider, Ultimate, TressFX | 107. 1fps/55.7fps |
93.2fps/61.0fps |
| Metro Last Light, Very High, SSAA | 50.8fps/26.4fps | 48.9fps/25.3fps |
| Call of Duty Ghosts, Extra, SMAA | 99.4fps/63.7fps | 93.2fps/61.0fps |
| Battlefield 4, Ultra | 76.6fps/45.2fps | 74.7fps/42.2fps |
| Crysis 3, Very High, 2x SMAA | 69.0fps/31.5fps | 63.8fps/31.3fps |
Regardless, the R9 295X2 clearly is the most powerful graphics card on the market, but practically, what can we do with that power in providing a state-of-the-art gaming experience? We set our sights high with Battlefield 4, opting to test two configurations. We first tried full-on ultra, with just one concession — the removal of multi-sampling anti-aliasing in favour of the excellent post-process alternative. 4K screens don’t just feature a higher resolution, we see a much higher pixel density as well, which should obviate the need for ultra-intensive AA.
Looking to give the GPU more room to breathe, our second configuration sees us reduce all settings down to high from ultra — the lone exception being texture quality, which remains at the absolute high-end (something the 8GB of GDDR4 — 4GB per GPU — should be more than capable of handling).
The results are quite beautiful. Even on the ultra preset, we spend much of the time at 60fps, producing a simply stunning presentation. However, it swiftly becomes clear that multiple layers of effects work can severely impact the fluidity of gameplay, with alpha transparencies (smoke, explosions etc) causing particular concerns. However, our combination of the high quality settings with ultra textures cleans up most of the issues and looks simply stunning. Battlefield 4 running at 4K/60fps — it’s an experience. As the alternative analysis demonstrates, those who favour ultra-level image quality and anti-aliasing still have a reason to consider the R9 295X2 — you get virtually flawless performance at 1440p, even with deferred 4x MSAA in effect.
So far, so good. In our benchmarks, the R9 295X2 demonstrates that even at the highest levels, you should be able to get frame-rates north of 30fps on even the most demanding games, just as long as there is some level of realism attached to the quality presets (super-sampling at 4K really is utter insanity).
«In our gameplay field tests, the R9 295X2 gets off to a great start. With only minimal tweakery we can sustain 60fps at 4K resolution in Battlefield 4.»
See it. Believe it. Battlefield 4 runs at 60fps at 4K resolution on high settings with ultra quality textures. Ramping up everything — bar anti-aliasing — to ultra can see substantial frame-rate dips, particularly in effects-heavy sequences. We’d prefer to take the slight hit to image quality in favour of a more consistent experience.
Alternative Analysis:
- Battlefield 4 2560×1440: Ultra Settings
The Battlefield 4 test really makes things interesting though.
By careful nurturing of quality presets, you can effectively double your frame-rate without giving up too much visual quality. Of course, we saw this before in our next-gen Digital Foundry PC piece — in Tomb Raider, we saw that turning off TressFX and lowering shadow resolution produced enormous gains in frame-rate, transforming the feel of the game with little visual impact. The same principle applies here, except that with 4K, the performance differential is even more dramatic once the engine really has something difficult to work with.
Battlefield 4 is one of the most technologically ambitious games on PC, but nothing quite comes close to Crysis 3 at its higher quality levels for truly stress-testing PC hardware. Back in the day, the measure of a gaming PC was defined by the answer to the question: can it run Crysis? In 2014, it’s still the franchise that defines the limits of PC technology, with the third game in the series able to push a triple-SLI GTX Titan set-up to its limits.
So how would the R9 295X2 cope?
Similar to Battlefield 4, we ran two tests. Max quality textures, v-sync and 2x SMAA anti-aliasing were a given (multi-sampling here at extreme resolutions really is quite insane), and we kicked off with 2560×1440 — 2.5K, if you will — with two runs through Welcome to the Jungle at the high and very high (max) quality levels. The results show a pretty much locked 60fps on high, with only minimal stutter on very high. Supremely impressive stuff. But it’s 4K that’s the true challenge here, and as the benchmark run demonstrates, not even the R9 295X2 brings forth anything like the target 60fps, so we opted for a medium vs high quality comparison.
«The R9 295X2 hands in stunning maxed out Crysis 3 gameplay at 1440p, but more aggressive settings reductions are necessary for consistency at 4K.»
A range of Crysis 3 cut-scenes compared at two quality levels — medium vs high — at 4K. V-sync and 2x SMAA are enabled, with very high texture quality locked in.
While a consistent 60fps is off the table, dropping down to 1440p (below) offers up the arcade-style performance we crave.
Alternative Analysis:
- Crysis 3 at 2560×1440: High vs. Very High Settings
Although there are areas where Crysis 3 can hit — or get close to — our desired 60fps, the reality is that Crytek’s extraordinary technological workout has claimed another scalp at the 4K level, with a wildly variable performance level that doesn’t feel particularly satisfying to play. The R9 295X2 is caught in a difficult situation here at 4K — the very high preset is simply too much work for the card to hold any kind of consistent frame-rate. Our preferred scenario here would be to engage a 30fps cap on the action and ramp up the quality presets as far as they can go — in this case, at the high level.
To be clear, you can achieve a perfectly playable, visually tremendous Crysis 3 experience at 4K — but this needs to be couched with the reality that the game is extraordinarily punishing on GPU hardware to the point where even the very latest GPU halo products can’t cut it at the top quality presets.
Console yourself with the fact that at 1440p, the 295X2 still provides immense resolution and — for the most part — gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling that only 60fps provides.
We went into this review fully aware of the immense challenges AMD faced here — our previous experiments with 4K have all suggested that we need a huge amount of rendering power in combination with developer optimisation for the format to really work. On top of that, our review session with the 7990 in September last year suggested that the frame-pacing issues that have plagued CrossFire were far from resolved. Well, the good news is that the R9 295X2 isn’t just the most powerful graphics card we’ve ever tested in terms of teraflops or benchmarks, it fulfils its primary purpose very well indeed — you can get a great 4K experience from it, and at 1440p the performance is simply stunning.
That goes beyond the benchmarks. The gameplay experience is good, stutter is minimalised as well as a dual-GPU solution can be (and may even be marginally improved over Nvidia based on a quick FCAT comparison with the 780 set-up in SLI) — and yes, while extreme GPU power requires an outrageous cooling solution and a mammoth power supply, the reality is that the end result is stunning.
Trades are required to hit consistent, high frame-rates in cutting-edge games, but the fact that we can enjoy a stupendous Battlefield 4 experience at 4K from a single graphics card speaks to the extent of the achievement here.
«It’s quite an achievement. We’re looking at a consumer product with 6.25x the GPU power of PlayStation 4 available less than six months after the console launched.»
While two R9 290s in CrossFire provides a similar experience at a significantly cheaper price, there’s a level of ingenuity to the R9 295X2 we can’t help but admire. Cooling performance and noise levels are exceptional, the more integrated design is preferable and the cost isn’t a huge amount more than two R9 290X cards.
Price-wise, this is clearly not cheap — halo products never are. UK pricing isn’t available yet, but at $1500 or 1099 Euros, it could have been a lot worse. Effectively we’re looking at small price-bump over two Radeon R9 290X cards bought together — and for that you’re getting an excellent liquid cooling solution and more space left within your chassis.
If you’re looking for a ‘budget’ option, we’ve demonstrated that two R9 290s in CrossFire will get you close enough, but stay well away from the reference cards and instead choose an aftermarket cooling solution. We tested the MSI R9 290 Gaming with the TwinFrozr set-up and the difference compared to the AMD reference card is night-and-day.
Clearly we’re in ultra high-end enthusiast territory here. You don’t need 4K or the R9 295X2 to enjoy a simply brilliant PC experience. But over and above the extreme performance you can extract from top-end games, the basic existence of the R9 295X2 demonstrates the relentless pace of innovation in the GPU space — we’re looking at a consumer product with 6.25x the compute power of PlayStation 4 (and almost 9x Xbox One) available less than six months after the console launched. That’s just astonishing.
0009
— 512-511 512-511 512-511 512- 2
2 9000
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000Fury XRadeon R9 FuryRadeon R9 NanoRadeon R9 390XRadeon R9 390Radeon R9 380XRadeon R9 380Radeon R7 370Radeon R7 360Radeon R9 295X2Radeon R9 290XRadeon R9 290Radeon R9 280XRadeon R9 285Radeon R9 280Radeon R9 270XRadeon R9 270Radeon R7 265Radeon R7 260XRadeon R7 260Radeon R7 250Radeon R7 240Radeon HD 7970Radeon HD 7950Radeon HD 7870 XTRadeon HD 7870Radeon HD 7850Radeon HD 7790Radeon HD 7770Radeon HD 7750Radeon HD 6990Radeon HD 6970Radeon HD 6950Radeon HD 6930Radeon HD 6870Radeon HD 6850Radeon HD 6790Radeon HD 6770Radeon HD 6750Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5Radeon HD 6670 GDDR3Radeon HD 6570 GDDR5Radeon HD 6570 GDDR3Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5Radeon HD 6450 GDDR3Radeon HD 5570 GDDR5Radeon HD 3750Radeon HD 3730Radeon HD 5970Radeon HD 5870Radeon HD 5850Radeon HD 5830Radeon HD 5770Radeon HD 5750Radeon HD 5670Radeon HD 5570Radeon HD 5550Radeon HD 5450Radeon HD 4890Radeon HD 4870 X2Radeon HD 4870Radeon HD 4860Radeon HD 4850 X2Radeon HD 4850Radeon HD 4830Radeon HD 4790Radeon HD 4770Radeon HD 4730Radeon HD 4670Radeon HD 4650Radeon HD 4550Radeon HD 4350Radeon HD 4350Radeon HD 43500 (IGP 890GX) Radeon HD 4200 (IGP)Radeon HD 3870 X2Radeon HD 3870Radeon HD 3850Radeon HD 3690Radeon HD 3650Radeon HD 3470Radeon HD 3450Radeon HD 3300 (IGP)Radeon HD 3200 (IGP)Radeon HD 3100 (IGP)Radeon HD 2900 XT 1Gb GDDR4Radeon HD 2900 XTRadeon HD 2900 PRORadeon HD 2900 GTRadeon HD 2600 XT DUALRadeon HD 2600 XT GDDR4Radeon HD 2600 XTRadeon HD 2600 PRORadeon HD 2400 XTRadeon HD 2400 PRORadeon HD 2350Radeon X1950 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1950 XTXRadeon X1950 XTRadeon X1950 PRO DUALRadeon X1950 PRORadeon X1950 GTRadeon X1900 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1900 XTXRadeon X1900 XTRadeon X1900 GT Rev2Radeon X1900 GTRadeon X1800 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1800 XT PE 512MBRadeon X1800 XTRadeon X1800 XLRadeon X1800 GTORadeon X1650 XTRadeon X1650 GTRadeon X1650 XL DDR3Radeon X1650 XL DDR2Radeon X1650 PRO on RV530XTRadeon X1650 PRO on RV535XTRadeon X1650Radeon X1600 XTRadeon X1600 PRORadeon X1550 PRORadeon X1550Radeon X1550 LERadeon X1300 XT on RV530ProRadeon X1300 XT on RV535ProRadeon X1300 CERadeon X1300 ProRadeon X1300Radeon X1300 LERadeon X1300 HMRadeon X1050Radeon X850 XT Platinum EditionRadeon X850 XT CrossFire EditionRadeon X850 XT Radeon X850 Pro Radeon X800 XT Platinum EditionRadeon X800 XTRadeon X800 CrossFire EditionRadeon X800 XLRadeon X800 GTO 256MBRadeon X800 GTO 128MBRadeon X800 GTO2 256MBRadeon X800Radeon X800 ProRadeon X800 GT 256MBRadeon X800 GT 128MBRadeon X800 SERadeon X700 XTRadeon X700 ProRadeon X700Radeon X600 XTRadeon X600 ProRadeon X550 XTRadeon X550Radeon X300 SE 128MB HM-256MBR adeon X300 SE 32MB HM-128MBRadeon X300Radeon X300 SERadeon 9800 XTRadeon 9800 PRO /DDR IIRadeon 9800 PRO /DDRRadeon 9800Radeon 9800 SE-256 bitRadeon 9800 SE-128 bitRadeon 9700 PRORadeon 9700Radeon 9600 XTRadeon 9600 PRORadeon 9600Radeon 9600 SERadeon 9600 TXRadeon 9550 XTRadeon 9550Radeon 9550 SERadeon 9500 PRORadeon 9500 /128 MBRadeon 9500 /64 MBRadeon 9250Radeon 9200 PRORadeon 9200Radeon 9200 SERadeon 9000 PRORadeon 9000Radeon 9000 XTRadeon 8500 LE / 9100Radeon 8500Radeon 7500Radeon 7200 Radeon LE Radeon DDR OEM Radeon DDR Radeon SDR Radeon VE / 7000Rage 128 GL Rage 128 VR Rage 128 PRO AFRRage 128 PRORage 1283D Rage ProIntelArc A770 16GBArc A770 8GBArc A750Arc A380Arc A310NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4090GeForce RTX 4080GeForce RTX 4080 12GBGeForce RTX 3090 TiGeForce RTX 3090GeForce RTX 3080 TiGeForce RTX 3080 12GBGeForce RTX 3080GeForce RTX 3070 TiGeForce RTX 3070GeForce RTX 3060 TiGeForce RTX 3060 rev.
2GeForce RTX 3060GeForce RTX 3050GeForce RTX 2080 TiGeForce RTX 2080 SuperGeForce RTX 2080GeForce RTX 2070 SuperGeForce RTX 2070GeForce RTX 2060 SuperGeForce RTX 2060GeForce GTX 1660 TiGeForce GTX 1660 SuperGeForce GTX 1660GeForce GTX 1650 SuperGeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6GeForce GTX 1650 rev.3GeForce GTX 1650 rev.2GeForce GTX 1650GeForce GTX 1630GeForce GTX 1080 TiGeForce GTX 1080GeForce GTX 1070 TiGeForce GTX 1070GeForce GTX 1060GeForce GTX 1060 3GBGeForce GTX 1050 TiGeForce GTX 1050 3GBGeForce GTX 1050GeForce GT 1030GeForce GTX Titan XGeForce GTX 980 TiGeForce GTX 980GeForce GTX 970GeForce GTX 960GeForce GTX 950GeForce GTX TitanGeForce GTX 780 TiGeForce GTX 780GeForce GTX 770GeForce GTX 760GeForce GTX 750 TiGeForce GTX 750GeForce GT 740GeForce GT 730GeForce GTX 690GeForce GTX 680GeForce GTX 670GeForce GTX 660 TiGeForce GTX 660GeForce GTX 650 Ti BoostGeForce GTX 650 TiGeForce GTX 650GeForce GT 640 rev.2GeForce GT 640GeForce GT 630 rev.2GeForce GT 630GeForce GTX 590GeForce GTX 580GeForce GTX 570GeForce GTX 560 TiGeForce GTX 560GeForce GTX 550 TiGeForce GT 520GeForce GTX 480GeForce GTX 470GeForce GTX 465GeForce GTX 460 SEGeForce GTX 460 1024MBGeForce GTX 460 768MBGeForce GTS 450GeForce GT 440 GDDR5GeForce GT 440 GDDR3GeForce GT 430GeForce GT 420GeForce GTX 295GeForce GTX 285GeForce GTX 280GeForce GTX 275GeForce GTX 260 rev.
2GeForce GTX 260GeForce GTS 250GeForce GTS 240GeForce GT 240GeForce GT 230GeForce GT 220GeForce 210Geforce 205GeForce GTS 150GeForce GT 130GeForce GT 120GeForce G100GeForce 9800 GTX+GeForce 9800 GTXGeForce 9800 GTSGeForce 9800 GTGeForce 9800 GX2GeForce 9600 GTGeForce 9600 GSO (G94)GeForce 9600 GSOGeForce 9500 GTGeForce 9500 GSGeForce 9400 GTGeForce 9400GeForce 9300GeForce 8800 ULTRAGeForce 8800 GTXGeForce 8800 GTS Rev2GeForce 8800 GTSGeForce 8800 GTGeForce 8800 GS 768MBGeForce 8800 GS 384MBGeForce 8600 GTSGeForce 8600 GTGeForce 8600 GSGeForce 8500 GT DDR3GeForce 8500 GT DDR2GeForce 8400 GSGeForce 8300GeForce 8200GeForce 8100GeForce 7950 GX2GeForce 7950 GTGeForce 7900 GTXGeForce 7900 GTOGeForce 7900 GTGeForce 7900 GSGeForce 7800 GTX 512MBGeForce 7800 GTXGeForce 7800 GTGeForce 7800 GS AGPGeForce 7800 GSGeForce 7600 GT Rev.2GeForce 7600 GTGeForce 7600 GS 256MBGeForce 7600 GS 512MBGeForce 7300 GT Ver2GeForce 7300 GTGeForce 7300 GSGeForce 7300 LEGeForce 7300 SEGeForce 7200 GSGeForce 7100 GS TC 128 (512)GeForce 6800 Ultra 512MBGeForce 6800 UltraGeForce 6800 GT 256MBGeForce 6800 GT 128MBGeForce 6800 GTOGeForce 6800 256MB PCI-EGeForce 6800 128MB PCI-EGeForce 6800 LE PCI-EGeForce 6800 256MB AGPGeForce 6800 128MB AGPGeForce 6800 LE AGPGeForce 6800 GS AGPGeForce 6800 GS PCI-EGeForce 6800 XTGeForce 6600 GT PCI-EGeForce 6600 GT AGPGeForce 6600 DDR2GeForce 6600 PCI-EGeForce 6600 AGPGeForce 6600 LEGeForce 6200 NV43VGeForce 6200GeForce 6200 NV43AGeForce 6500GeForce 6200 TC 64(256)GeForce 6200 TC 32(128)GeForce 6200 TC 16(128)GeForce PCX5950GeForce PCX 5900GeForce PCX 5750GeForce PCX 5550GeForce PCX 5300GeForce PCX 4300GeForce FX 5950 UltraGeForce FX 5900 UltraGeForce FX 5900GeForce FX 5900 ZTGeForce FX 5900 XTGeForce FX 5800 UltraGeForce FX 5800GeForce FX 5700 Ultra /DDR-3GeForce FX 5700 Ultra /DDR-2GeForce FX 5700GeForce FX 5700 LEGeForce FX 5600 Ultra (rev.
2)GeForce FX 5600 Ultra (rev.1)GeForce FX 5600 XTGeForce FX 5600GeForce FX 5500GeForce FX 5200 UltraGeForce FX 5200GeForce FX 5200 SEGeForce 4 Ti 4800GeForce 4 Ti 4800-SEGeForce 4 Ti 4200-8xGeForce 4 Ti 4600GeForce 4 Ti 4400GeForce 4 Ti 4200GeForce 4 MX 4000GeForce 4 MX 440-8x / 480GeForce 4 MX 460GeForce 4 MX 440GeForce 4 MX 440-SEGeForce 4 MX 420GeForce 3 Ti500GeForce 3 Ti200GeForce 3GeForce 2 Ti VXGeForce 2 TitaniumGeForce 2 UltraGeForce 2 PROGeForce 2 GTSGeForce 2 MX 400GeForce 2 MX 200GeForce 2 MXGeForce 256 DDRGeForce 256Riva TNT 2 UltraRiva TNT 2 PRORiva TNT 2Riva TNT 2 M64Riva TNT 2 Vanta LTRiva TNT 2 VantaRiva TNTRiva 128 ZXRiva 128 9Fury XRadeon R9 FuryRadeon R9 NanoRadeon R9 390XRadeon R9 390Radeon R9 380XRadeon R9 380Radeon R7 370Radeon R7 360Radeon R9 295X2Radeon R9 290XRadeon R9 290Radeon R9 280XRadeon R9 285Radeon R9 280Radeon R9 270XRadeon R9 270Radeon R7 265Radeon R7 260XRadeon R7 260Radeon R7 250Radeon R7 240Radeon HD 7970Radeon HD 7950Radeon HD 7870 XTRadeon HD 7870Radeon HD 7850Radeon HD 7790Radeon HD 7770Radeon HD 7750Radeon HD 6990Radeon HD 6970Radeon HD 6950Radeon HD 6930Radeon HD 6870Radeon HD 6850Radeon HD 6790Radeon HD 6770Radeon HD 6750Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5Radeon HD 6670 GDDR3Radeon HD 6570 GDDR5Radeon HD 6570 GDDR3Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5Radeon HD 6450 GDDR3Radeon HD 5570 GDDR5Radeon HD 3750Radeon HD 3730Radeon HD 5970Radeon HD 5870Radeon HD 5850Radeon HD 5830Radeon HD 5770Radeon HD 5750Radeon HD 5670Radeon HD 5570Radeon HD 5550Radeon HD 5450Radeon HD 4890Radeon HD 4870 X2Radeon HD 4870Radeon HD 4860Radeon HD 4850 X2Radeon HD 4850Radeon HD 4830Radeon HD 4790Radeon HD 4770Radeon HD 4730Radeon HD 4670Radeon HD 4650Radeon HD 4550Radeon HD 4350Radeon HD 4350Radeon HD 43500 (IGP 890GX) Radeon HD 4200 (IGP)Radeon HD 3870 X2Radeon HD 3870Radeon HD 3850Radeon HD 3690Radeon HD 3650Radeon HD 3470Radeon HD 3450Radeon HD 3300 (IGP)Radeon HD 3200 (IGP)Radeon HD 3100 (IGP)Radeon HD 2900 XT 1Gb GDDR4Radeon HD 2900 XTRadeon HD 2900 PRORadeon HD 2900 GTRadeon HD 2600 XT DUALRadeon HD 2600 XT GDDR4Radeon HD 2600 XTRadeon HD 2600 PRORadeon HD 2400 XTRadeon HD 2400 PRORadeon HD 2350Radeon X1950 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1950 XTXRadeon X1950 XTRadeon X1950 PRO DUALRadeon X1950 PRORadeon X1950 GTRadeon X1900 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1900 XTXRadeon X1900 XTRadeon X1900 GT Rev2Radeon X1900 GTRadeon X1800 CrossFire EditionRadeon X1800 XT PE 512MBRadeon X1800 XTRadeon X1800 XLRadeon X1800 GTORadeon X1650 XTRadeon X1650 GTRadeon X1650 XL DDR3Radeon X1650 XL DDR2Radeon X1650 PRO on RV530XTRadeon X1650 PRO on RV535XTRadeon X1650Radeon X1600 XTRadeon X1600 PRORadeon X1550 PRORadeon X1550Radeon X1550 LERadeon X1300 XT on RV530ProRadeon X1300 XT on RV535ProRadeon X1300 CERadeon X1300 ProRadeon X1300Radeon X1300 LERadeon X1300 HMRadeon X1050Radeon X850 XT Platinum EditionRadeon X850 XT CrossFire EditionRadeon X850 XT Radeon X850 Pro Radeon X800 XT Platinum EditionRadeon X800 XTRadeon X800 CrossFire EditionRadeon X800 XLRadeon X800 GTO 256MBRadeon X800 GTO 128MBRadeon X800 GTO2 256MBRadeon X800Radeon X800 ProRadeon X800 GT 256MBRadeon X800 GT 128MBRadeon X800 SERadeon X700 XTRadeon X700 ProRadeon X700Radeon X600 XTRadeon X600 ProRadeon X550 XTRadeon X550Radeon X300 SE 128MB HM-256MBR adeon X300 SE 32MB HM-128MBRadeon X300Radeon X300 SERadeon 9800 XTRadeon 9800 PRO /DDR IIRadeon 9800 PRO /DDRRadeon 9800Radeon 9800 SE-256 bitRadeon 9800 SE-128 bitRadeon 9700 PRORadeon 9700Radeon 9600 XTRadeon 9600 PRORadeon 9600Radeon 9600 SERadeon 9600 TXRadeon 9550 XTRadeon 9550Radeon 9550 SERadeon 9500 PRORadeon 9500 /128 MBRadeon 9500 /64 MBRadeon 9250Radeon 9200 PRORadeon 9200Radeon 9200 SERadeon 9000 PRORadeon 9000Radeon 9000 XTRadeon 8500 LE / 9100Radeon 8500Radeon 7500Radeon 7200 Radeon LE Radeon DDR OEM Radeon DDR Radeon SDR Radeon VE / 7000Rage 128 GL Rage 128 VR Rage 128 PRO AFRRage 128 PRORage 1283D Rage ProIntelArc A770 16GBArc A770 8GBArc A750Arc A380Arc A310NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4090GeForce RTX 4080GeForce RTX 4080 12GBGeForce RTX 3090 TiGeForce RTX 3090GeForce RTX 3080 TiGeForce RTX 3080 12GBGeForce RTX 3080GeForce RTX 3070 TiGeForce RTX 3070GeForce RTX 3060 TiGeForce RTX 3060 rev.
2GeForce RTX 3060GeForce RTX 3050GeForce RTX 2080 TiGeForce RTX 2080 SuperGeForce RTX 2080GeForce RTX 2070 SuperGeForce RTX 2070GeForce RTX 2060 SuperGeForce RTX 2060GeForce GTX 1660 TiGeForce GTX 1660 SuperGeForce GTX 1660GeForce GTX 1650 SuperGeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6GeForce GTX 1650 rev.3GeForce GTX 1650 rev.2GeForce GTX 1650GeForce GTX 1630GeForce GTX 1080 TiGeForce GTX 1080GeForce GTX 1070 TiGeForce GTX 1070GeForce GTX 1060GeForce GTX 1060 3GBGeForce GTX 1050 TiGeForce GTX 1050 3GBGeForce GTX 1050GeForce GT 1030GeForce GTX Titan XGeForce GTX 980 TiGeForce GTX 980GeForce GTX 970GeForce GTX 960GeForce GTX 950GeForce GTX TitanGeForce GTX 780 TiGeForce GTX 780GeForce GTX 770GeForce GTX 760GeForce GTX 750 TiGeForce GTX 750GeForce GT 740GeForce GT 730GeForce GTX 690GeForce GTX 680GeForce GTX 670GeForce GTX 660 TiGeForce GTX 660GeForce GTX 650 Ti BoostGeForce GTX 650 TiGeForce GTX 650GeForce GT 640 rev.2GeForce GT 640GeForce GT 630 rev.2GeForce GT 630GeForce GTX 590GeForce GTX 580GeForce GTX 570GeForce GTX 560 TiGeForce GTX 560GeForce GTX 550 TiGeForce GT 520GeForce GTX 480GeForce GTX 470GeForce GTX 465GeForce GTX 460 SEGeForce GTX 460 1024MBGeForce GTX 460 768MBGeForce GTS 450GeForce GT 440 GDDR5GeForce GT 440 GDDR3GeForce GT 430GeForce GT 420GeForce GTX 295GeForce GTX 285GeForce GTX 280GeForce GTX 275GeForce GTX 260 rev.
2GeForce GTX 260GeForce GTS 250GeForce GTS 240GeForce GT 240GeForce GT 230GeForce GT 220GeForce 210Geforce 205GeForce GTS 150GeForce GT 130GeForce GT 120GeForce G100GeForce 9800 GTX+GeForce 9800 GTXGeForce 9800 GTSGeForce 9800 GTGeForce 9800 GX2GeForce 9600 GTGeForce 9600 GSO (G94)GeForce 9600 GSOGeForce 9500 GTGeForce 9500 GSGeForce 9400 GTGeForce 9400GeForce 9300GeForce 8800 ULTRAGeForce 8800 GTXGeForce 8800 GTS Rev2GeForce 8800 GTSGeForce 8800 GTGeForce 8800 GS 768MBGeForce 8800 GS 384MBGeForce 8600 GTSGeForce 8600 GTGeForce 8600 GSGeForce 8500 GT DDR3GeForce 8500 GT DDR2GeForce 8400 GSGeForce 8300GeForce 8200GeForce 8100GeForce 7950 GX2GeForce 7950 GTGeForce 7900 GTXGeForce 7900 GTOGeForce 7900 GTGeForce 7900 GSGeForce 7800 GTX 512MBGeForce 7800 GTXGeForce 7800 GTGeForce 7800 GS AGPGeForce 7800 GSGeForce 7600 GT Rev.2GeForce 7600 GTGeForce 7600 GS 256MBGeForce 7600 GS 512MBGeForce 7300 GT Ver2GeForce 7300 GTGeForce 7300 GSGeForce 7300 LEGeForce 7300 SEGeForce 7200 GSGeForce 7100 GS TC 128 (512)GeForce 6800 Ultra 512MBGeForce 6800 UltraGeForce 6800 GT 256MBGeForce 6800 GT 128MBGeForce 6800 GTOGeForce 6800 256MB PCI-EGeForce 6800 128MB PCI-EGeForce 6800 LE PCI-EGeForce 6800 256MB AGPGeForce 6800 128MB AGPGeForce 6800 LE AGPGeForce 6800 GS AGPGeForce 6800 GS PCI-EGeForce 6800 XTGeForce 6600 GT PCI-EGeForce 6600 GT AGPGeForce 6600 DDR2GeForce 6600 PCI-EGeForce 6600 AGPGeForce 6600 LEGeForce 6200 NV43VGeForce 6200GeForce 6200 NV43AGeForce 6500GeForce 6200 TC 64(256)GeForce 6200 TC 32(128)GeForce 6200 TC 16(128)GeForce PCX5950GeForce PCX 5900GeForce PCX 5750GeForce PCX 5550GeForce PCX 5300GeForce PCX 4300GeForce FX 5950 UltraGeForce FX 5900 UltraGeForce FX 5900GeForce FX 5900 ZTGeForce FX 5900 XTGeForce FX 5800 UltraGeForce FX 5800GeForce FX 5700 Ultra /DDR-3GeForce FX 5700 Ultra /DDR-2GeForce FX 5700GeForce FX 5700 LEGeForce FX 5600 Ultra (rev.
2)GeForce FX 5600 Ultra (rev.1)GeForce FX 5600 XTGeForce FX 5600GeForce FX 5500GeForce FX 5200 UltraGeForce FX 5200GeForce FX 5200 SEGeForce 4 Ti 4800GeForce 4 Ti 4800-SEGeForce 4 Ti 4200-8xGeForce 4 Ti 4600GeForce 4 Ti 4400GeForce 4 Ti 4200GeForce 4 MX 4000GeForce 4 MX 440-8x / 480GeForce 4 MX 460GeForce 4 MX 440GeForce 4 MX 440-SEGeForce 4 MX 420GeForce 3 Ti500GeForce 3 Ti200GeForce 3GeForce 2 Ti VXGeForce 2 TitaniumGeForce 2 UltraGeForce 2 PROGeForce 2 GTSGeForce 2 MX 400GeForce 2 MX 200GeForce 2 MXGeForce 256 DDRGeForce 256Riva TNT 2 UltraRiva TNT 2 PRORiva TNT 2Riva TNT 2 M64Riva TNT 2 Vanta LTRiva TNT 2 VantaRiva TNTRiva 128 ZXRiva 128
You can simultaneously select
up to 10 video cards by holding Ctrl
Reviews of video cards AMD Radeon R9 295X2:
-
Fastest of all. Radeon R9 295X2 vs GeForce GTX 780 Ti SLI at 4K Ultra HD
AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Radeon R9 295X2 and 500W Power Consumption: Problems and Solutions
A lot has been said and written in recent days about the fact that additional power supply to the Radeon R9295X2 (Hardwareluxx test and review) can be a problem.
And the point is not so much in the actual power consumption of the video card, but in supplying up to 500 W of energy to it. ATX specifications are often cited, calculations are given, various tests are analyzed, and even photographs of thermal imagers are analyzed. The conclusions drawn from all this information are not always correct. For this reason, we decided to write a separate note in which we will analyze the indicated problem «on the shelves».
Let’s start with the fact: AMD for Radeon R9The 295X2 listed a TDP of 500W. According to the latest PCI Express specifications, the graphics card can draw a maximum of 75W through the PCI Express slot (3A at 3.3V plus 5.5A at 12V). An additional 75W can be added via the 6-pin connector (6.25A at 12V) and 150W via the 8-pin socket (12.5A at 12V). As a result, we get up to 300 W of power on a video card with one 6- and one 8-pin auxiliary power connector. In this case, you can officially use the PCI Express logo, which system builders can put in information sheets and descriptions.
Anything above is not prohibited, but not allowed for all systems. But theoretical PCI Express specifications are one thing, but what about practice? How can a graphics card like the Radeon R9295X2, consume more than the maximum of 300W?
AMD Radeon R9 295X2.
At first glance, the situation is even worse, because the Radeon R9 295X2 video card does not consume power via the 3.3 V line via the PCI Express slot (see power consumption tests at Tom’s Hardware.de). However, the maximum 10 watts through this line is unlikely to matter for a total level of 500 watts. In addition, since a maximum of 28 W of energy is supplied through the 12 V line through the slot, the video card receives almost all the power of 500 W through two 8-pin connectors. nine0089
Many readers fear that the two 8-pin connectors simply won’t handle nearly 250 watts of power each, since they’re only 150 watts according to the PCI Express specification. But here one should distinguish between the electrical specifications of the connectors and the requirements of the standard, in this case PCI Express.
They don’t always match. Therefore, it is better to consider the electrical specifications and the standard separately.
Power overload on the connectors can be considered dangerous due to the presence of contact resistance. When current flows through the contacts, the greater the resistance, the more heat will be generated. Such contacts usually have a resistance of 1-10 mΩ. We will carry out calculations based on a resistance of 5 mΩ. Let’s assume that the 500W graphics card power is split equally between the two connectors, resulting in a current of up to 20.8A on the 12V line. so that a current of 7 A flows through each contact. There is a contact resistance of 5 mΩ per contact, which at a current of 7 A gives 245 mW. This heat is not completely dissipated into the surrounding air or onto the insulators, but partly through the wires/contacts themselves. Also, the 8-pin connector has five ground contacts, which also lose some of the heat. nine0089
If you look at the Molex specification, then there is considered a permissible current of 13 A per contact.
The same connectors are often used in modular power supplies. Recall: AMD Radeon R9 295X2 has a current of up to 7 A through each additional power contact, which fits perfectly into the electrical specifications of the connector itself. The heat generated can be removed quite easily, and although the thermal imager photos show a temperature of 75 ° C, neither the cable insulation nor the connector itself heats up to a critical level, which is usually taken as 105 ° C. nine0089
But this does not mean that no problems can arise. They may not be related to technical specifications, but to the carelessness of users. A system that will install a graphics card with a power consumption of up to 500 W cannot be equipped with a 550 W or 650 W power supply. AMD specifically detailed the requirements for power supplies that must be adhered to. If you connect the video card to a weak power supply, then, most likely, the «Over Current Protection» protection for exceeding the maximum current will work.
But it is better not to expose the hardware to such a risk. nine0089 ASUS ARES II.
Many users are wondering why AMD did not install three 8-pin auxiliary power sockets on the Radeon R9 295X2? As did the same ASUS on the ARES II video card. We’re not experts in complex PCB design, but AMD would certainly take advantage of this opportunity if it seemed realistic. Another connector requires additional space. In any case, only AMD itself can answer this question.
Electrically, two 8-pin connectors on the Radeon R9 graphics card295X2 does not cause any problems. The operating conditions of the video card seem to us much more important. A weak power supply may cause the system to fail to boot or shut down after starting the game. If you do not clean the case and fans from dust, it clogs into the power supply, then problems can also arise. In any case, if you are going to spend 1.400 euros on such a video card, you should make sure that your power supply can withstand such a load, and the case provides sufficient ventilation.
