I'm looking to pick up a load of blocks for my R9 290's, but I was curious about the difference between EK's new CSQ design over their previous traditional blocks. If it's just cosmetic then I'll go with the older style, but does anyone know if there would be any other reasons to opt for the CSQ blocks, from a performance perspective?
It is actually more than just cosmetic differences dude. I had the CSQ and the link system is different. To be honest, I felt that it was more robust on the CSQ 290x block than it was on the FC-Titan blocks I owned a few months ago. The Titan blocks feature the same link system as on the 290X block in this OCUK link http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=WC-461-EK&groupid=962&catid=1520&subcat=2327 Take a good look and then compare it to the CSQ image below. The non-CSQ link system attaches to the side of the card and I don't feel as though it offers as much safety in terms of the o-ring seal - certainly not in the case of multi card setups. With the CSQ block the link system bit sits in a decent-sized recess in the card and feels much safer.
I've used both and never had an issue with either, in multi card setups both bridge systems work well. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
I still feel that the one they're using on the CSQ is more robust. Chris_Waddle had the exact same issue as me with his FC-Link bridge system and Titans. Personally, if it was me going multi-GPU I wouldn't even consider the non-CSQ - just my two cents mate.
*** Obviously it's not relevant if you're going to connect the three cards together without one of the EK bridges!
Cheers for the responses. Yes I had noticed the difference in how the bridges connect. I will be using a parallel bridge with my three cards, so this is relevant. It's just a shame that I don't particularly like the appearance of the CSQ blocks.
