# Sapphire R9 Fury Tri-X OC 4 GB



## W1zzard (Aug 6, 2015)

Sapphire's R9 Fury comes with a large triple-slot, triple-fan cooler that delivers fantastic noise levels during gaming, and in idle it will turn off the fans completely for the perfect noise-free experience. The card also comes overclocked out of the box, and the dual-BIOS lets you switch to one with an increased power limit.

*Show full review*


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 7, 2015)

Great temps and low noise, quite good card all around. Must say though that this is more like reference card and that asus is in house custom design. 

What about other AIB:s? Powercolor will have one, but msi, gigabyte, club3d, xfx etc. any news from them?


----------



## acperience7 (Aug 7, 2015)

When the 4GB was confirmed for Fiji people were saying how iffy it is to only have 4GB of RAM, so what's up with Fuy (X) performance at higher resolution? Is the bandwidth so crazy it doesn't matter? Every time I see benches for these chips they always so close to 6GB 980Ti in higher resolutions. Even in open world games it seems get along just fine with 4GB of RAM.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 7, 2015)

I like it how R9 295X2 is lightning fast and beats confidently everything else at 4K.

This is the card to go.


----------



## Frogger (Aug 7, 2015)

Thanks for the review. But after buying an EVGA 790 for my 4k TV, 1st nv purchase in 6+years. I think my next gaming build will be Pascal based. The 7970's will have to do till then.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 7, 2015)

Frogger said:


> I think my next gaming build will be Pascal based.



Why?

I mean how do you know that Pascal will be better than the rest?


----------



## Moofachuka (Aug 7, 2015)

Had 560ti, then went with 7970 then xfire them... Might be outdated but still good for the games I play at 1080p.  Initially had problems with xfire but it's been smooth for over a year.  My next card will probably be Pascal due to AMD's uncertain future...


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Aug 7, 2015)

Moofachuka said:


> My next card will probably be Pascal due to AMD's uncertain future...



The good thing is that there are signs that nvidia is joining AMD in the party. Have you seen in their latest quarter report the steep decline in net income?

Seriously tho, AMD will be fine.


----------



## jigar2speed (Aug 7, 2015)

hmm... the gap between Fury's and the GTX 980Ti has started to shrink above full HD resolution.

EDIT: Wrong assumption, please ignore...


----------



## dick_cheney (Aug 7, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> The good thing is that there are signs that nvidia is joining AMD in the party. Have you seen in their latest quarter report the steep decline in net income?
> 
> Seriously tho, AMD will be fine.



Lol what, Nvidia had a great last quarter after a 176m writeoff from their modem divsion, 400m share repurchase and a 52m cash dividend for its shareholders they still posted in the green...plus i think it was their highest quarterly result overall so far.


----------



## 64K (Aug 7, 2015)

jigar2speed said:


> hmm... the gap between Fury's and the GTX 980Ti has started to shrink above full HD resolution.



Are you comparing this overclocked Fury to a reference 980 Ti? What if we flip the situation and compare an overclocked 980 Ti to a non-overclocked Fury X



Spoiler: 4K














Spoiler: 1440p











That wouldn't be a fair comparison either.


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 7, 2015)

"Should you have more money to spend though, then GTX 980 Ti should definitely be on your list. It costs $50 more"
Cheapest ones with custom cooling are at $660-670, so it's about $90 more.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 7, 2015)

64K said:


> Are you comparing this overclocked Fury to a reference 980 Ti? What if we flip the situation and compare an overclocked 980 Ti to a non-overclocked Fury X
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whoa 40Mhz, be careful! 

Great review Wizz


----------



## jigar2speed (Aug 7, 2015)

64K said:


> Are you comparing this overclocked Fury to a reference 980 Ti? What if we flip the situation and compare an overclocked 980 Ti to a non-overclocked Fury X
> 
> That wouldn't be a fair comparison either.



Nope, i just checked the first review of Fury X and todays review results, minor frame gains in some games have started happening but they are under the margin of error so my bad  .


----------



## 64K (Aug 7, 2015)

Lionheart said:


> Whoa 40Mhz, be careful!
> 
> Great review Wizz



That raises the question why a Fury Tri-X OC card comes with such a small 4% boost in core clocks and could only be overclocked an additional 7%






http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/33.html

The Fury X can only be overclocked an additional 10% over reference clocks






http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html

An MSI 980 Ti Gaming OC comes with a 15% overclock over reference and can be overclocked an additional 9% after that






http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Gaming/33.html


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 8, 2015)

@W1zzard I cleaned my T7100 laptop today and the Intel PCH in the laptop also happened to have this similar-looking membrane of sorts laid on top of it. It shouldn't do anything for y guess is that it provides a layer of protection against physical damage from scuffing with the copper plate? It would make sense for Fiji since the VRAM is bare and not encapsulated in a plastic package, and the GPU die is so huge.

Or maybe Sapphire's Tri-X cooler, which looks identical to that of its 390X Tri-X, doesn't properly make contact with Fiji and needs a makeshift shim.

EDIT: OH SHITE, I forgot that it has a cutout so it can't be for protecting the HBM stacks or GPU die. However, the copper plate looks pretty flat so it could just be for maximum heat transfer / filling in the empty space between the bare interposer and the copper plate.


----------



## haswrong (Aug 8, 2015)

fury isnt performing confidently in 1440p territory, and there are already well established cards for 1080p (390x,980). so its a little hard to tell what this graphics card is good for for the money.


----------



## zzzaac (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm finding it so weird that this Sapphire costs the same as that Palit Jetstream 980Ti where I'm from at least


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 8, 2015)

I thought voltage adjusting is already possible with these cards based on your previous article. Why omit it in this review?


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 8, 2015)

Sempron Guy said:


> I thought voltage adjusting is already possible with these cards based on your previous article. Why omit it in this review?



Feb 2 2011 is your join date...

In all that time W1zzard has never used voltage increase in any review.  He always has maintained that.

EDIT:

And this is why OC headroom (for AIB's is so important).

Far Cry 4 - Fiji's one coup - 

The Sapphire at stock OC gets 65.8 fps.
The Palit Super Jetstream 980ti gets 78.7fps (20% faster).  W1zz then got a further 12% out of the 980ti card compared to the Sapphire.

To be fair the Palit card is £80 more in UK. (<20% more expensive).

All being said, if it was between this and a _980_.... I'd buy the Fury card.


----------



## 64K (Aug 8, 2015)

Yeah, I think AMD's plan was to make the Fury (non X) beat the 980. It looks like they succeeded there but it does cost more. Speaking of cost, I've read numerous articles stating that HBM costs more to manufacture than GDDR5 but I don't recall reading how much more. Does anyone know how much more it's adding to the cost of Fiji? I know AMD likes to innovate but I wonder if the added expense of the HBM is just too much right now.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 8, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Feb 2 2011 is your join date...
> 
> In all that time W1zzard has never used voltage increase in any review.  He always has maintained that.
> 
> ...



not since Feb 2011 maybe  but anyway yeah I'm not a aware of the changes. I only recently read the oc section given the Fury X/Fury's overclocking controversy.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 8, 2015)

dick_cheney said:


> Lol what, Nvidia had a great last quarter after a 176m writeoff from their modem divsion, 400m share repurchase and a 52m cash dividend for its shareholders they still posted in the green...plus i think it was their highest quarterly result overall so far.



Overall revenue up 5% from the same quarter last year, and GPU revenue up by a whopping 51% . AMD can only hope to have a quarter as "bad" as nVIDIA just did.


----------



## bug (Aug 8, 2015)

64K said:


> Are you comparing this overclocked Fury to a reference 980 Ti? What if we flip the situation and compare an overclocked 980 Ti to a non-overclocked Fury X
> 
> That wouldn't be a fair comparison either.



Fury (X) isn't overclockable, no one seems to be getting more than 10% over stock. Thus, using a reference or overclocked card doesn't matter much as they're about the same anyway.
Either way, the picture is complete by now: the Fury is an alternative to the 980 (if you don't mind the higher power draw), but the Fury X doesn't really match the 980Ti.


----------



## nem (Aug 8, 2015)

Yeah!

fury non x > catalist 15.7

vs

fury x > catalist 15.5


----------



## SASBehrooz (Aug 9, 2015)

I did expect better temp over the asus strix version.


----------



## Shtb (Aug 9, 2015)

SASBehrooz said:


> I did expect better temp over the asus strix version.


And what cost this temperature (Asus strix) have?


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 10, 2015)

haswrong said:


> fury isnt performing confidently in 1440p territory, and there are already well established cards for 1080p (390x,980). so its a little hard to tell what this graphics card is good for for the money.


What matrix are you looking at to arrive at that "fury isn't performing confidently in 1440p"?

When looking at the actual game results of W1zzard's data there's like 3 B-M that show (or other similarly priced cards) really start struggling (<40fps) at 1440p; Assassin's Creed, Crysis 3 (both @4xAA), while Dragon Age is right in the 40'ish range.  Then considering there's like 8 titles in the mix that aren't any challenge (+80FpS) to card(s) in this price range... I'm not sure if you meant 4K?

Of the 11 games left it would seem Fury is above the 980 in 5 tiles, 4/ties, and 2 titles... Project Cars and Wolfenstein are  good wins for the 980, but still plenty playable on a Fury.

So a nice Custom OC 980 for slightly less (7-10% after rebate), than this or this Sapphire Fury for $560, they're staunch performers for 1440p,  and a toss-up as to what to get.


----------



## haswrong (Aug 10, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> What matrix are you looking at to arrive at that "fury isn't performing confidently in 1440p"?
> 
> When looking at the actual game results of W1zzard's data there's like 3 B-M that show (or other similarly priced cards) really start struggling (<40fps) at 1440p; Assassin's Creed, Crysis 3 (both @4xAA), while Dragon Age is right in the 40'ish range.  Then considering there's like 8 titles in the mix that aren't any challenge (+80FpS) to card(s) in this price range... I'm not sure if you meant 4K?
> 
> ...


maybe im too harsh on the hardware.. im still used to min 75fps from the days of CRT monitors..


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 10, 2015)

haswrong said:


> maybe im too harsh on the hardware.. im still used to min 75fps from the days of CRT monitors..


Well depends on if using 60Hz or 144Hz, or something... most of these titles are playable on 60Hz with +40 FpS; you get great visual immersion +55 FpS.  Most on 100Hz+ will really like to gravitate to the 80+FpS, while the enthusiast like even more, but then your panel is easily as much (or more) than these cards.

I think the 390X is the better purchase for those entering the 2560x1440 (60Hz) arena, priced something like 100 bucks cheaper it might make a little more sense for those willing to roll back some settings and eye candy.  Even then for the 9 titles where they're really mixing it up 390X is right in the hunt with the reference 980.


----------



## SASBehrooz (Aug 11, 2015)

Shtb said:


> And what cost this temperature (Asus strix) have?



lol. Its fake. just look at the Asus Strix OC temp which is lower than Stock one (by 9C ??, lol  ). hahahaha.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/34.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/35.html


----------



## eodeo (Aug 18, 2015)

Why is video playback still using 3d clocks? They fixed multi monitor clocks, surely they could have fixed video playback too. Whats the deal with that?


----------



## nashathedog (Sep 5, 2015)

I moved from an MSI TFIV 290x gaming to the Sapphire Fury Tri-X and for me it has made a big difference overall. Like a lot of MSI Gaming and Asus DCUII Hawaii owners my card was a hot one with 94 degrees under load being a regular occurrence, With the most demanding games it required a one for one fan profile to keep temps in the mid to high 80's which made it loud so coming from that to this has been great. I still use the one for one profile and the card idles at 30 odd degrees and rarely goes over 60, Plus I can't hear it over the quiet edition case fans I put in my rig so I'm really happy with the move even though it wasn't cheap. 
I use it with a 75hz 1080p monitor but I game at 1440 via vsr and so far every game I've tried runs great. 
I've only owned it for about 3 weeks so far but I'm very happy with it. It's a real shame AMD never allowed Sapphire to build a full Fiji version.


----------

