Originally Posted by B NEGATIVE
My faulty leap of logic was correct,the dies are different but the song remains the same.
Similar temps to the ARES with less rad and hotter chips....I may not be the hottest on GPU's but watercooling? I'm all about it,its what I do. How you can assume that they would behave different? Each dies has a similar heat output,they are very comparable.
10mm difference is immaterial,the depth of the tube rows and quantity of tube rows is what matters,not total depth.
As for it being comparable with air,that is false,an aircooler serving both dies would not be in the same neighbourhood as this AIO setup.
GPUs are much better at showcasing the advantage of water cooling over air cooling... They really put intels IHS and TIM to shame.
400+ watts off a 120mm radiator sounds pretty decent, the only problem you might run into with this is that the water temperatures are very high and might cause degradation in the pipes/pumps/seals.
The delta temps of the ARES 2 compared to the 295x2 seem to match what I'd estimate are the thermal profiles for the cooling systems. ~35C delta for A2 and ~40C delta for the X2, add to that the fact that the rad is thicker and can accommodate maybe ~20% more heat dissipation (probably limited by the airflow through the rad).
That 20% makes sense when you compare the amount of watts dissipated/degree delta which would be 375/35 and 500/40. The former being ~10.7w/C and the latter ~12.5w/C the second solution providing ~17% better w/C values.
The thicker rad makes a difference. But, I doubt you'd run into much trouble when loading one of these with Furmark or OCCT, the throttling does kick in at 75C, so it might happen, but that is probably the limit because of the fact that the pumps and coolant loop are not designed to operate at higher temperatures, which logically will be significantly higher than those encountered on a custom loop. If this was combined with a 240mm rad there would be a great load of overclocking headroom.