Tuesday, June 16th 2015
Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench
AMD's upcoming $650 Radeon R9 Fury X could have what it takes to beat NVIDIA's $999 GeForce GTX Titan X, while the $550 Radeon Fury (non-X) performs close to the $650 GeForce GTX 980 Ti, according to leaked 3DMark 11 and 3DMark (2013) benches by Korean tech publication ITCM.co.kr. The benches see the R9 Fury X score higher than the GTX Titan X in all three tests, while the R9 Fury is almost as fast as the GTX 980 Ti. The cards maintain their winning streak over NVIDIA even with memory-intensive tests such as 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra (4K), but buckle with 5K. These two cards, which are bound for the market within the next 30 days, were tested alongside the R9 390X, which is not too far behind the GTX 980, in the same graphs. The R9 Nano, however, isn't circulated among industry partners, yet. It could still launch in Summer 2015.
Source:
ITCM (Korea)
100 Comments on Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench
Its not over yet, there should be some interesting non-reference overclocked versions like ASUS DCUII or MSI Lightning etc.
There was a rumour about versions of fury with GDDR5 to allow for higher Vram, but either way there should be lots of interesting options based on this GPU. Anyway 4GB is enough for the vast majority of gamers.
Its going to be a long time before pascal comes next year
Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench"
and we see in the first slide that the Fury X does indeed outperform TitanX by.. well about 30 points, which can hardly be called outperforming.
Now a bigger jump can be seen at the bottom of the slide, the 390x scoring about 1500 points higher then the 290x.
Now if this is just the clocks, then that makes the "outperforming" part of the Fury X over the Titan X even less relevant, a 5mhz bump should easily level the 2 out.
Maybe not the most credible source but it goes a bit far to just call them "made up" right?
In my opinion AMD's slideshow falls in the exact same category.
Either way if this holds to be true, then its a great day!
Makes life a lot more enjoyable :clap:
Allow me to lay down the facts to help resolve the arguing.
1. The more ram, the better, regardless of the game, the resolution etc.
2. The faster the speed of the ram, the better!
3. The faster the GPU, the better.
I am sure you get my point.
If have concerns regarding power-draw or maybe consider these 'highest-end available' consumer products as overkill, then, perhaps you should not be considering the purchase of the 'highest-end available' model and go for something aimed at your budget/requirements.
Personally, I play at 4k except when I am using my racing simulator which results in 10440 x 2160 resolution.
Next year i plan to get myself another 3 4K screens and mount them which would result in 10440 x 4320 resolution.
Why would i do this ? Because i can!
Is this reasonable thinking ? Depends if 17PSi Turbo is reasonable in my car with my miltek exhaust, clutch upgrade, RS500 brakepads, Slotted & Vented front/back discs, big-assed intercooler, dreamscience cold air intake, modded swaybars, Quaife LSD and so on.
I am proud of AMD R&D. HBM is a huge leap and will improve with time. I really can see HBM taking cards to 64Gb and maybe beyond. GPU speed might be a limiting factor, but that's another matter. It is more of a case, whether we can or not.
I applaud AMD for being able to continue to survive, and not only that, bring us high-end quality products that make the opposition cry and even bitch. Nvidia has a much larger market-share, much larger R&D fund and has a much larger sum worth, and yet AMD is either on-top, even or slightly under, not the defeated little company in the corner of the market that Nvidia wants them to be.
Don't get me wrong, i love my Titans and i am not some AMD fan-boy, in-fact, i think both companies are playing us and i hate that about both of them, but i can't do anything about that. I can only give credit where it is due.
The last time i was this proud of either AMD or Nvidia was when Nvidia released the 8800GTX.
I am super happy AMD is finally releasing something that is not going to set my house on fire and well done to them. Unfortunately the performance gap is certainly not big enough to suffer drivers that are equally as bad as Creative Sound Blasters with U.I design on par with Windows 95.
Performance is only one part of a much bigger picture.
I do not have a problem with the heat coming from my AMD GPU's because they seem to have awesome fans from the factory capable of cooling the cards appropriately, problem is, they sound like an aircraft landed on your desktop!
Thank you.
Is it not possible that what we know as fact could be changing because of it? Could 4GB of a brand new design change the way we game on our PCs?
Someone will hopefully correct me if I am wrong, i am just going by from what I remember of an old white paper on some of the technologies built into gddr5 (error detection and re-transmission).
Human nature I suppose, when little information is presented we tend to fill in the blanks ourselves.
Not that I will be buying any cards any time soon... I think my dual r9 290's will last a fair bit longer under dx12.