# Now knowing the performance of Fury X, what would you choose?



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2015)

Let's see what would people choose if you are to buy a high end graphic card now.


----------



## animal007uk (Jun 24, 2015)

Fury X just because im sick of reading all the bs about it and thats all i have to say about it


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 24, 2015)

Nano but only after seeing how it compares to 390X.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 24, 2015)

Well it obviously depends on peoples budget, but if I was in the market for a high-end card then clearly the 980 Ti, especially in it's countless custom forms is a no brainer... 50% more VRAM, great efficiency, great OC potential [even better under water], HDMI2, more flexible connectivity, DX12_1... blah blah blah.

As it stands I'm loving my 970, bless it


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm buying nothing AMD, this is bulldozer all over again


----------



## zsolt_93 (Jun 24, 2015)

970, as i dont seem to need the more power the others can offer for the extra price. If they would come cheaper then my decision would be another, but the Fury release wont change nVidia pricing down, maybe up if Fury cannot keep up with the demand.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2015)

I might be interested in the nano but only if it was replacing the 390x price point which i'm sure it wont.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 24, 2015)

I am voting for whatever @xfia says


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 24, 2015)

This is a tech forum.  If you even consider OC'ing, it's either a 980 or a 980ti (based on budget choices).  If it's a smaller budget I'd go 780ti or 290X.  Smaller still? 280X.

If you want the fastest single card, balls to walls - I have no idea why you'd choose a Fury X over a 980ti.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 24, 2015)

A second 7970 under water, I mean a 280X, ooops, I mean a 270X.....


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 24, 2015)

Did not vote.


I'd buy a second hand, non-coin farming 290, 290x, or an immensely discounted 7970 GHz.  I'd pocket the rest of the money, and invest it toward whichever company can offer better bang for the buck when Pascal goes head-to-head with Arctic Islands.  Once everything else was said and done, I'd have a decent card now, and actually be able to afford a card when the die shrink finally comes.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2015)

Added new choice~


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 24, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Did not vote.
> 
> 
> I'd buy a second hand, non-coin farming 290, 290x, or an immensely discounted 7970 GHz.  I'd pocket the rest of the money, and invest it toward whichever company can offer better bang for the buck when Pascal goes head-to-head with Arctic Islands.  Once everything else was said and done, I'd have a decent card now, and actually be able to afford a card when the die shrink finally comes.



Hey, someone who makes sense!

I like you.


----------



## qubit (Jun 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I am voting for whatever @xfia says


Yes good point! Where is xfia and his AMD fanboism now, then? I just can't figure it out.


----------



## Jborg (Jun 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I am voting for whatever @xfia says


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 24, 2015)

qubit said:


> Yes good point! Where is xfia and his AMD fanboism now, then? I just can't figure it out.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I am voting for whatever @xfia says



I was the one that started that little nuclear flame war. 

Honestly, I don't regret it.  At the same time, a little compassion.  Who can honestly say they didn't ever take something too far, and do something stupid?  A little compassion for them is in order.




Edit:
Allow me a bit of clarification.  After half a dozen posts in half as many days I said that if the posting spam wouldn't stop I'd ask for moderator action.  The resultant nuclear burn-out was rather...funny...  I feel my actions weren't out of line, but that doesn't mean I take joy in silencing anyone.

On a positive note, it was only a temporary ban to my understanding.  Hopefully they'll come back and have learned something.  If not, everyone else can look forward to another train wreck.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jun 24, 2015)

Not buying anything right now, although I need a good card to run my htpc server with 4k tv. Will wait on real hdmi 2.0 adapters with the proper sil chip. I have time to see how things stack up under win10.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 24, 2015)

Spoiler



he is probably queueing up to buy a 980 ti


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 24, 2015)

I think still the 970.  That $300 price  point is still the sweet spot, IMO.  You get 70% of the performance of the Fury X/980Ti for 45% of the price.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 24, 2015)

qubit said:


> Yes good point! Where is xfia and his AMD fanboism now, then? I just can't figure it out.


@Tatty_One thought that he needed a vacation considering how his attitude escalated. Let's not try to start a war again and fuel the fire with bait.

Right now I'm leaning towards a 980 Ti. Fury X is out of the question given the performance and a need to find out where to put that AIO cooler. Needless to say that it has been almost a decade since I've had a green camp GPU so that might be it. We'll see... but I don't think I'll be waiting much longer now that we know how Fury X turned out.


----------



## qubit (Jun 24, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I was the one that started that little nuclear flame war.
> 
> Honestly, I don't regret it.  At the same time, a little compassion.  Who can honestly say they didn't ever take something too far, and do something stupid?  A little compassion for them is in order.


Sure, I'm talking tongue in cheek here. Lads gotta take the pss a little bit when one fucks up, lol. 



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> he is probably queueing up to buy a 980 ti


rofl, love it. 

Oh so cruel.



Aquinus said:


> @erocker thought that he needed a vacation considering how his attitude escalated. Let's not try to start a war again and fuel the fire with bait.


Has he been given a vacation? I think that's a little harsh. We're just talking about someone who was overenthusiastic about the wrong product, not a spitefull troll.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 24, 2015)

qubit said:


> Has he been given a vacation? I think that's a little harsh. We're just talking about someone who was overethusiastic about the wrong product, not a spitefull troll.


No, but changing your tread titles to "ALL TPU USERS ARE TROLLS!" is and it became a very well deserved vacation very quickly. The problem is that he was saying ridiculous things but wasn't learning from anything with respect to what people brought to the discussion. He was also incredibly confrontational when it comes to views that didn't match his own.


----------



## qubit (Jun 24, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> No, but changing your tread titles to "ALL TPU USERS ARE TROLLS!" is and it became a very well deserved vacation very quickly. The problem is that he was saying ridiculous things but wasn't learning from anything with respect to what people brought to the discussion. He was also incredibly confrontational when it comes to views that didn't match his own.


Oh, I didn't know he'd done that with the title, no wonder. I saw the comments about the title change, but thought it was about that innocuous one I saw.

I guess being too confrontational doesn't help either.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jun 24, 2015)

awe.....now things go back to the norm....... only thing on the horizon now is bored-well........Amd can still have a massive hit with the nano though. gonna try to find an xfire review....


*....wait this isn't a bad card at all.... Amd worse enemy is its biggest supporters who over hype a good product to magical levels it can't live up to. So even when they win....they loose. * *Amd's just consistently a year or so late to the party.*


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 24, 2015)

So, back on subject.

Has anyone tried coin farming with any of these cards?  It seems like that little fad burnt itself out, and now AMD and Nvidia have given up on their cards being monsters of hash calculation.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm in limbo over this... I'm sure the Fury X will improve with driver releases 6+ months from now, but you can't find any Fury X's to buy and its a gamble.


----------



## horik (Jun 24, 2015)

Had a GTX970 for a few days and loved it, but had to return it(my PSU sucks, got a new one)
I think it has the right power for 1080p and is in my price range, but still will wait for Nano to be released.
The prices of GTX970 have droped a bit after latest AMD releases.


----------



## newconroer (Jun 24, 2015)

The two cards in my system, cost me less than one Fury X - and as always, the multi gpu setup crushes the fabled single card solution.
I never could understand how Nvidia and AMD continue to pump out 'flagship' cards at these ludicrous prices and hold a straight face, all the while knowing that two lower spec past generation, cards can topple it with ease. For that money I can fit a stage two turbo BPU kit, including labor on a vechile. And they want me to fork it over, so I can get a 20% increase on games that I already cap at 60 and 96hz/120hz?

And alas, this is yet another generation of cards I will be skipping.

EDIT: Where the fu** am I going to fit that clunky cooler appendage? You can't even clip it onto the PCB(?), does it just hang freely. Besides, I'll build my own LCS thank you very much - whoever built an integrated LCS solution that was actually good? If the name 'Thermaltake' is the first thing in your head, don't bother answering the question.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 24, 2015)

Because single card will always be problem free. I have yet to see a multi GPU setup that is not riddled with idiotic problems and constant waiting for the dumb game profiles to become available...


----------



## natr0n (Jun 24, 2015)

potato in the form of hash browns extra crispy


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 24, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Because single card will always be problem free. I have yet to see a multi GPU setup that is not riddled with idiotic problems and constant waiting for the dumb game profiles to become available...



This. I just went from 3x 670s to a Titan X, SLI is an absolute fucking pain in the ass to deal with unless you live solely in a single fullscreen game.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 24, 2015)

Could we stay on topic please rather than publically discussing members who are not actually banned, although it is acknowledged and satisfying that people (surprisingly including me) showed both caution and some compassion in the matter..... move on please, you are not doing him any favours should he wish to return at some point....... thank you.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 24, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Because single card will always be problem free. I have yet to see a multi GPU setup that is not riddled with idiotic problems and constant waiting for the dumb game profiles to become available...


 Well mine is pretty problem free but the game profile part does get me from time to time.

Eh, honestly I am not sure what I would pick.  I always go for custom LCS in this day so the cooler does not bother me.  However I would probably wait a bit longer to see what happened before I would choose.  If I was forced to choose now, it would be hard but probably if I could use the shroud from the R9 Fury X would be a Fury trio.  If not probably the GTX 980ti trio.  I personally like them both pretty equally but I like the look of the Fury X better while the GTX 980ti to me is nice for its overclocking which appeals to me. 

One thing to note is I still like CFX better than SLI on the third and fourth card because of the improved scaling for the ridiculous setups, and I personally like Freesync's price better than Gsync however since there is no CFX Freesync yet I am still waiting.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 24, 2015)

I never had problems with single GPU. Old game, new game, they all behave the same. But with multi-GPU's you often can onyl run games on one GPU and most of the time you're waiting for profiles for very new games. For me, they work from moment I run them, be it in prototype, alpha, beta or final release stage.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 24, 2015)

I said F-k it and bought one off Newegg


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 24, 2015)

What about the Fury X²? Or whatever they're going to be calling it. You know?

This thing.





http://www.techpowerup.com/213527/amd-dual-gpu-fiji-graphics-card-pcb-pictured.html

No? I guess I'm voting all other cards then.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 24, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I never had problems with single GPU. Old game, new game, they all behave the same. But with multi-GPU's you often can onyl run games on one GPU and most of the time you're waiting for profiles for very new games. For me, they work from moment I run them, be it in prototype, alpha, beta or final release stage.



I can't say I ever actually had problems with SLI profiles and new games, I just ran into regular quirks and nuanced behavior in relation to either HiDPI (4k), or multimonitor more often than not, and being limited to fullscreen exclusively for performance doesn't help.

I do have to say I'm disappointed in both top end offerings being 4/6Gb when there is clear need for more for 4k+ gaming.

I'm eagerly awaiting DX12 rumored vram consolidation capabilities.


----------



## broken pixel (Jun 24, 2015)

If I was to purchase a new GPU it would be two 980ti's. 

Since my two 290x GPUs are still pumping pixels at 100fps vsynced at 2560x1440, I will wait until Nvidia releases another flavor GPU before I upgrade.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 24, 2015)

What ever let's me run 3* 4K monitor's...

But honestly 980ti


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 24, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Because single card will always be problem free. I have yet to see a multi GPU setup that is not riddled with idiotic problems and constant waiting for the dumb game profiles to become available...



I've used SLI for every generation since the 7000 series. I've had the following: 7900GTs, 7600GTs, 8800GTs, 9800GTX+s, GTX260s, GTX275s, GTX470s, GTX670s, GTX970s

I can say that in the beginning your statement was accurate.  However, right around the middle of the GTX470 generation things took a turn for the better.  I've had no what changed, but I've had no real issues since then.  I've never had a game where I've said "man it sucks SLI doesn't work with this".  Games that need SLI, it works with.  There are games that SLI doesn't work with, but every one I've experienced still pump out 100FPS+ with a single card, so I don't really care that SLI isn't working.

Heck, I played GTA:V for weeks before I realized I wasn't using the updated driver that was released for GTA:V.  SLI was still working in the game and I was still getting 100FPS.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 24, 2015)

v12dock said:


> I said F-k it and bought one off Newegg


 Oh really, well please let us know how you like it.



newtekie1 said:


> I've used SLI for every generation since the 7000 series. I've had the following: 7900GTs, 7600GTs, 8800GTs, 9800GTX+s, GTX260s, GTX275s, GTX470s, GTX670s, GTX970s
> 
> I can say that in the beginning your statement was accurate.  However, right around the middle of the GTX470 generation things took a turn for the better.  I've had no what changed, but I've had no real issues since then.  I've never had a game where I've said "man it sucks SLI doesn't work with this".  Games that need SLI, it works with.  There are games that SLI doesn't work with, but every one I've experienced still pump out 100FPS+ with a single card, so I don't really care that SLI isn't working.
> 
> Heck, I played GTA:V for weeks before I realized I wasn't using the updated driver that was released for GTA:V.  SLI was still working in the game and I was still getting 100FPS.


Totally agree, I normally just ignore games that don't have CFX profiles mostly because they already work well beyond on a single card.  I think besides a few that took a week to get a profile on that needed it I have never had a problem since my twin 9800GX2's


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 24, 2015)

Well, for a single GPU, it never ever even crossed my mind about any of that. It just works. Always.


----------



## NC37 (Jun 24, 2015)

Boo, no Nano option. Abstaining till Nano comes out.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 24, 2015)

The more I'm looking at tests and prices, the more it seems that only logical way for me to go is with R9 Nano or vanilla Fury. If that falls in the water, waiting for Arctic Islands and Pascal is the only option.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 24, 2015)

Looks like all that hoopla from Xfia (and others obsessed with Fury elsewhere), was all very premature as many expected.

Can barely hang with the 980 Ti at 4k, gets easily beaten at lower res (so bad for 1080p/1440p high refresh gamers), and to boot has loud pump and coil noise, and no HDMI 2 or DVI.

It runs cool at load and all, but personally, I don't even like the fact that you have to fidget with a rad/fan and hoses. At 50-60c load, it could have easily sufficed with an air cooler and still been fairly compact.


----------



## Toothless (Jun 24, 2015)

I still want 2xGTX970's because why not. I'm not going to play 4k nor triple 1440p.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 24, 2015)

Intel Potato II Extreme GTR, but I wouldn't mind exchanging my 2x GTX 970 for a single GTX 980 Ti.


----------



## erocker (Jun 24, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> @erocker thought that he needed a vacation considering how his attitude escalated. Let's not try to start a war again and fuel the fire with bait.


Nope, wasn't me.

To address someone else's comment, it was not harsh, it was appropriate he was banned. Not everything one does to deserve a ban is in public. So I ask kindly you reserve judgment. Also, it's not really appropriate to discuss such matters.

Thanks.



btarunr said:


> Intel Potato II Extreme GTR, but I wouldn't mind exchanging my 2x GTX 970 for a single GTX 980 Ti.


Same here. I seem to be hitting that 3.5gb limit more often than I thought with 1440p.


----------



## Rowsol (Jun 24, 2015)

2 people picked 390x.  I voted 970.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 24, 2015)

erocker said:


> Nope, wasn't me.
> 
> To address someone else's comment, it was not harsh, it was appropriate he was banned. Not everything one does to deserve a ban is in public. So I ask kindly you reserve judgment. Also, it's not really appropriate to discuss such matters.
> 
> ...


My mistake, I think that was Tatty. Someone with a green name did it.
Edit: Fixed it.  I think we can stop talking about that subject now. Side note, I'm really wanting a 980 Ti now.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 24, 2015)

Voted 980Ti - Im hoping the price drops and i can leave the world of SLi for a short stint.


----------



## qubit (Jun 25, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> So, back on subject.
> 
> Has anyone tried coin farming with any of these cards?  It seems like that little fad burnt itself out, and now AMD and Nvidia have given up on their cards being monsters of hash calculation.


It burnt itself out due to the nature of Bitcoin farming. As more coins are found, it takes longer and longer to find the next one ie the problem gets harder.

To address this, custom processors on little tiny cards have been designed which are much faster at this one single task than any graphics card. These are then ganged together to make a Bitcoin supercomputer.

This is what I know off the top of my head. If you have a quick google on it, you'll be fascinated by all the latest developments in Bitcoin farming. 



newtekie1 said:


> Heck, I played GTA:V for weeks before I realized I wasn't using the updated driver that was released for GTA:V.  SLI was still working in the game and I was still getting 100FPS.


I'm curious if the performance or any glitches changed when you installed the latest driver?


----------



## HammerON (Jun 25, 2015)

I have been using dual cards (CFX and SLI) for nearly 10 years and agree that at times it can be a pain. I have not had that many issues over the last 5 years with SLI and have enjoyed my current GTX 780's for the last couple years. I have been waiting for a single-card solution for playing games at 2560x1600 resolution and was waiting to see how Fury would stack up against the GTX 980 Ti.  Now after seeing today's review of the Fury, I am leaning more towards the 980 Ti...


----------



## mroofie (Jun 25, 2015)

Toothless said:


> I still want 2xGTX970's because why not. I'm not going to play 4k nor triple 1440p.


Overkill Why not 





HammerON said:


> I have been using dual cards (CFX and SLI) for nearly 10 years and agree that at times it can be a pain. I have not had that many issues over the last 5 years with SLI and have enjoyed my current GTX 780's for the last couple years. I have been waiting for a single-card solution for playing games at 2560x1600 resolution and was waiting to see how Fury would stack up against the GTX 980 Ti.  Now after seeing today's review of the Fury, I am* leaning more towards the 980 Ti.*..



For 1440P it's the gtx 980 ti


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

980Ti


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 25, 2015)

qubit said:


> It burnt itself out due to the nature of Bitcoin farming. As more coins are found, it takes longer and longer to find the next one ie the problem gets harder.
> 
> To address this, custom processors on little tiny cards have been designed which are much faster at this one single task than any graphics card. These are then ganged together to make a Bitcoin supercomputer.
> 
> ...




I'm aware of ASIC miners.  My question was whether or not GPUs still incorporated the components.  If they gave up all that calculation ability we've gone from a die shrink, to coin farmers, to a long in the tooth process that has to eject computational prowess to make slight graphical improvements.  If that were the case, we've gotten nothing new since the 7xxx and 6xx generations.  We've been losing features, in order to cover for a profound lack of development.  It's food for thought.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 25, 2015)

Just wondering, but when is the next gen expected Pascal? I truly want to build a new computer end of year with a 980ti, but want to do 3x1440 or 4k. I know next gen will address this more.

If it's not too far out I could just re-use this gpu with all the new components till next gen come out.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 25, 2015)

If you're using today's review for comparison(Fury X vs. GTX 980 Ti), you're not taking into account many things. Things that could possibly sway the debate strongly in favor of the Fury X over the 980Ti.

1. The Fury X is a 4GB card, and the 980 Ti is a 6GB card. Apples and oranges. You're not even being fair to compare them against each other. Put 2 more GB on the Fury X, then we'll talk.
2. No overvoltage applied to the core, so we don't now how much beyond 1400MHz it will go. Odds are it'll be QUITE A BIT! Odds the 980 Ti core will reach comparatively higher frequencies with any amount of overvoltage are MINIMAL...IMO.
3. No memory overclocking available yet for the Fury X, so we don't know how much improvement that's going to make. Could be HUGE! Could also leave the 980 Ti IN THE DUST...bandwidth wise(even with 2 less GB). _Nobody_ knows yet just exactly what HBM will do. So don't presume _you_ do.

But I'm just speculating...go ahead and ban me.

PS, I HATE Nvidia. You guessed that right!


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2015)

I am still so torn between the two. On one hand I do want to give team Green a try since I really do not want to deal with AIO cooling. Besides 980Ti really shines over AMD Fury. 

On the other hand I have always sticked with AMD cards(never bought ANY team green card before, except a Riva128).


----------



## qubit (Jun 25, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm aware of ASIC miners.  My question was whether or not GPUs still incorporated the components.  If they gave up all that calculation ability we've gone from a die shrink, to coin farmers, to a long in the tooth process that has to eject computational prowess to make slight graphical improvements.  If that were the case, we've gotten nothing new since the 7xxx and 6xx generations.  We've been losing features, in order to cover for a profound lack of development.  It's food for thought.


Well, we know that NVIDIA sacrificed compute capability for Maxwell, likely to improve gaming performance, but I don't know about AMD.

@W1zzard, do you have any idea about the compute performance of the Fury X card?


----------



## AsRock (Jun 25, 2015)

Potato , although if i was still on my 6970 i would wait a little.

1. to see if drivers improve
2. see if the prices change.

I was actually interested in  the NANO but not now but again if i was on my 6970 i would wait.

a few reasons i was not going upgrade this year

1. No need 290X owns every thing i run
2. still on 28nm


----------



## KainXS (Jun 25, 2015)

I'd go for the GTX970 myself


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 25, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Im hoping the price drops and i can leave the world of SLi for a short stint.


Not likely to happen anytime soon, esp now that Fury X is being shown to not be able to beat it. It's no doubt why Nvidia chose to release their top shelf Ti version sooner than usual.

Anyone know when 980 Ti aftermarket cooled cards will be out btw? Still seeing just the reference ones.

Anyway, I envy the guys getting sent free samples of them, reference or not. I was just musing over the fact that two 980 Tis would cost more than I paid for both my dental crowns!


----------



## Nordic (Jun 25, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm aware of ASIC miners.  My question was whether or not GPUs still incorporated the components.  If they gave up all that calculation ability we've gone from a die shrink, to coin farmers, to a long in the tooth process that has to eject computational prowess to make slight graphical improvements.  If that were the case, we've gotten nothing new since the 7xxx and 6xx generations.  We've been losing features, in order to cover for a profound lack of development.  It's food for thought.


Nothing has changed in this regard. It is inherent in modern gpu design. Even nvidias maxwell is great at it now, at least compared to other gpu's. I used to mine on 750ti's just because they maximized performance per watt. I can't even find fury x's mhashes so I guess no one has tried yet. If they did it would be pointless; gpu mining is dead.

For gpu mining, it is a matter of open cl performance. Other programs and workloads use it too. If gpu mining was still a thing, the fury X would be king.


----------



## Ikaruga (Jun 25, 2015)

xkm1948 said:


> I am still so torn between the two. On one hand I do want to give team Green a try since I really do not want to deal with AIO cooling. Besides 980Ti really shines over AMD Fury.
> 
> On the other hand I have always sticked with AMD cards(never bought ANY team green card before, except a Riva128).


I don't think going with Nvidia will be a smooth ride if you spent your life with AMD until now, you should expect inconveniences. People are reporting driver problems lately for example, but I did not meet any of those, I was and I'm still very happy with my Geforces.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 25, 2015)

Ill go 980TI but I voted 390x because i dont really know if I want to spend what I spent on my 290x on release on a GPU right now. the 390x is the same but atleast ill have more vram and a none vanilla card. I'll probably hop back to nvidia asap though.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 25, 2015)

Fury X is on its way overnight from Newegg warehouse in CA I will have pictures tomorrow


----------



## Bansaku (Jun 25, 2015)

Nothing until I see how well Windows 10 and DX 12 work with my existing HD7950 3GB Boost in CFX (OC'd to 1100/1400MHz).


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2015)

After some thinking I just placed order for the R9 Fury X. I will update once the card arrives.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 25, 2015)

Funny seeing several pics of the exact same card with different brand names on Newegg. So stupid they had to go putting an AIO system on every one. Probably could have sold them at least $50 or more cheaper with a two fan HS on them.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 25, 2015)

I choose Pascal.

Not paying another cent for 28nm.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 25, 2015)

AMD venting their frustrations from trash talk after improving drivers to barely nudge out the 980 Ti.

Fist of Fury X


----------



## mastrdrver (Jun 25, 2015)

I hate nVidia for the crap they pulled back in the 3Dfx days. Same manipulative idiot is still CEO. It will be a cold day in hell before I give them my money. They do put out some good cards, but it's the lack of character in the management is why I hate them and refuse to give them my money.

I'd still take Fury since I play in Eyefinity. 4k results are close enough and they'll only get better with newer drivers.

As it is I'm waiting for the next die shrink and HBM2. Depending on how Zen turns out, it may be a whole new rebuild.



Fluffmeister said:


> Well it obviously depends on peoples budget, but if I was in the market for a high-end card then clearly the 980 Ti, especially in it's countless custom forms is a no brainer... 50% more VRAM, great efficiency, great OC potential [even better under water], HDMI2, more flexible connectivity, DX12_1... blah blah blah.
> 
> As it stands I'm loving my 970, bless it



DX12_1 is not include features that DX12_0 does not. Stop spreading that fud.


----------



## mroofie (Jun 25, 2015)

mastrdrver said:


> I hate nVidia for the crap they pulled back in the 3Dfx days. Same manipulative idiot is still CEO. It will be a cold day in hell before I give them my money. They do put out some good cards, but it's the lack of character in the management is why I hate them and refuse to give them my money.
> 
> I'd still take Fury since I play in Eyefinity. 4k results are close enough and they'll only get better with newer drivers.
> 
> ...


*
12_1* Conservative Rasterization Tier 1, Rasterizer Ordered Views.

Nvidia GeForce 900 series (Maxwell, 2nd gen);[17][18][19][20][21]
Nvidia GeForce 1000 series (Pascal)

You're the one spreading fud



RCoon said:


> I choose Pascal.
> 
> Not paying another cent for 28nm.


Can't wait to see what nvidia brings


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 25, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> If you're using today's review for comparison(Fury X vs. GTX 980 Ti), you're not taking into account many things. Things that could possibly sway the debate strongly in favor of the Fury X over the 980Ti.
> 
> 1. The Fury X is a 4GB card, and the 980 Ti is a 6GB card. Apples and oranges. You're not even being fair to compare them against each other. Put 2 more GB on the Fury X, then we'll talk.
> 2. No overvoltage applied to the core, so we don't now how much beyond 1400MHz it will go. Odds are it'll be QUITE A BIT! Odds the 980 Ti core will reach comparatively higher frequencies with any amount of overvoltage are MINIMAL...IMO.
> ...



1. HBM1 is limited to 4GB. Fury X can't carry 6GB and the whole cause for this is AMD's choice of HBM.
2. Overvoltage applied to the core? Do your thing, but since it is not enabled in the driver, your warranty will be void if you brick your card. Regular overclocking on a 980ti already gives it a 10% lead without voiding warranty.
3. You think memory overclocking makes sense when you already have a bandwidth that is way out of line? It is not going to net you any gains at all.

Speculate ahead, but this is borderline stupidity and ignorance. Sorry.


----------



## DinaAngel (Jun 25, 2015)

i want to know why they only set 64 rops and not 128. the card would run soo much faster with more rops.
kinda shooting themselves in the foot


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

I think that's the reason why GTX 980Ti is beating Fury. 64 vs 96 ROP is quite a dfference...


----------



## DinaAngel (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I think that's the reason why GTX 980Ti is beating Fury. 64 vs 96 ROP is quite a dfference...


yeah its so stupid really. also why lock fury x to reference design only? like lol, AMD should just let the third partys do what they want, fury x lost the dx11 race but thankfully did win in the dx12 race for now until something new comes out.
the normal fury should have problems beating 980ti even with big overclocks


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 25, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> I'm buying nothing AMD, this is bulldozer all over again


sorry but WHAT? you compare Fury X to bulldozer??? it tails the 980Ti at a small % loss (or win depending the situation) cost the same ...  and cost 400 less than a Titan X, so for you it's a bulldozer because it's not beating a ridiculously priced high end card that has no practical use over "self satisfaction"?

AMD did deliver ... not on par to the hype felt but they still did deliver a good card no matter what, ofc the price could be a bit lower and it would be a win/win situation for the customer.

voted Fury X (but more Nano than X ) with a custom block, now that i've seen EK already did one, i will wait till Nano review and see if Aquacomputer would do a block for either the X or Nano.
i would go for a 980Ti if i find a good deal but surely not for a 970 or 980, as i have a 290



ensabrenoir said:


> *Amd's just consistently a year or so late to the party.*


not this time, it compete with the card in her price-range, ofc ... doesn't beat a Titan X (and the rebrand is not that bad since all the card involved are competitive in their price-range  )

not trying to be of one side or another ... but i think the disappointment about the hype is not really justified (since if you recall all the rumor almost everything pointed in the direction of the result we got.)

bottom line both are fine ... tho i would gladly support AMD and the HBM introduction, just because.



DinaAngel said:


> the normal fury should have problems beating 980ti even with big overclocks


but will it have problem to beat or compete with her logical contestant? ... aka: 980 ...

for me it's as it goes
390/290>390X/290X>fury/fury nano>Fury X
960>970>980>980Ti

also i noticed at my etailer/retailer i can now find some 290 under the price of a 960 and some 290X just above ... and some site re reviewed the 290X 4/8gb and the nickname is "horspower of a 970 with a 960 price-tag"


----------



## bhaalkc (Jun 25, 2015)

Id buy 2x 980 ti or wait for Pascal....


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 25, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm aware of ASIC miners.  My question was whether or not GPUs still incorporated the components.  If they gave up all that calculation ability we've gone from a die shrink, to coin farmers, to a long in the tooth process that has to eject computational prowess to make slight graphical improvements.  If that were the case, we've gotten nothing new since the 7xxx and 6xx generations.  We've been losing features, in order to cover for a profound lack of development.  It's food for thought.



It's an OpenCL kernel.  There are no special "components" beyond OpenCL support.

Sticking with my R9 290X for now personally.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> If you're using today's review for comparison(Fury X vs. GTX 980 Ti), you're not taking into account many things. Things that could possibly sway the debate strongly in favor of the Fury X over the 980Ti.
> 
> 1. The Fury X is a 4GB card, and the 980 Ti is a 6GB card. Apples and oranges. You're not even being fair to compare them against each other. Put 2 more GB on the Fury X, then we'll talk.
> 2. No overvoltage applied to the core, so we don't now how much beyond 1400MHz it will go. Odds are it'll be QUITE A BIT! Odds the 980 Ti core will reach comparatively higher frequencies with any amount of overvoltage are MINIMAL...IMO.
> ...



Point 1 - So we never should have compared 290X with 780 or 780ti?  Don't be absurd.
Point 2 - In W1zz'ds reviews he applies NO over voltage anyway.  The 780ti partner models also seem to be more lenient with power limit so they go quite high.  Most reviews are hitting 100Mhz OC tops (and given it's under water - it's not thermally throttling.
Point 3 - Memory OC will not make the difference.  Bandwidth has been shown to be more than ample.  It's the VRam limit that will hold back.  With enough texture loading the HDD or SSD will start shuffling back and forth - hence stuttering.  I know because I get it at 1440p with 3GB cards.

FTR, HBM isn't about some magical step in performance.  It's a new step towards same bandwidths with far lower clocks and therefore far lower power draw.  HBM is a leap in material/design technology which will allow primarily an efficiency gain.  Fiji XT without HBM would be a power disaster.

If you really want to speculate - AMD held Fiji back for quite a while to tweak it.  This might well be it as close to as fast as it can go (on hardware) without gaming optimisations.  Conversely, Nvidia artificially locks out the Maxwell core clocks via TDP to give an impression of efficiency (though it is efficient).  The full GM200 core can hit another 10-20% if allowed through cooling and TDP - WITHOUT voltage increases.  Imagine what it can do with no TDP limit (ooh, lets say a flashed BIOS), a nice water block and say the full Titan core count.  GM200 won't be caught by Fiji XT if they're both unshackled. 

I think you will find this Maxwell core is quite operational... your faith in AMD is your weakness.  (seeing as NV is the dark side for you )


----------



## v12dock (Jun 25, 2015)

It interesting a lot of the reviewers seem to have different results


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 25, 2015)

v12dock said:


> Fury X is on its way overnight from Newegg warehouse in CA I will have pictures tomorrow


Which one did you get (Not that it matter much but I am just curious)? 



xkm1948 said:


> After some thinking I just placed order for the R9 Fury X. I will update once the card arrives.


Same Question, which one did you buy and what made you change your mind.

I would like to see how well this card (Fury X) scales with time again as that is the real winning situation with AMD (At least in my book).  Though my choice on AMD's side has always been the extra vram and performance at higher resolutions in the recent years.  I also want to see the basic Fury and what it allows as it could be really cool depending on its performance and how unlocked it is.  Maybe they will unlock the fury a bit later for higher overclocking...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 25, 2015)

qubit said:


> Yes good point! Where is xfia and his AMD fanboism now, then? I just can't figure it out.


He was given a "vacation" because of his activities and attacks on several people, followed by the flameout as he crashed, changing thread titles several times when no one subscribed blindly to the gospel he was spewing. Finally he dared Tatty to silence him, which he was reluctant to do.

EDIT:  Oops, read thru rest of posts and saw Tatty_One's comment.  That's what I get for responding to something on page 1 without reading all the pages. My apologies


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

v12dock said:


> It interesting a lot of the reviewers seem to have different results



Are they?

I thought most were saying it's running close with the stock 980ti.  As W1zz says.  It's damn right up there with Nvidia's fastest (at 4k).  But since this thread is about what would you buy, you can take the other factors into consideration depending on your enthusiast level, budget or modding background.  As it stands, despite it being parallel with a 980ti (at 4k) it loses at more common resolutions and it overclocks poorly in comparison.  If you prefer AMD and use a closed case and game at 1440p upwards, hell the Fury X is an awesome choice.

I have an open test bench and custom loop.  I like to tinker so for me it's not the best choice.  The HBM implementation means AMD have seemingly had to lock down the memory elements of OC and the core is limited.  

I see it a few ways.

AMD person - awesome card
Nvidia person - great card but not as good as a 980ti
Enthusiast (who likes to play with tech toys) - a challenge to embrace
Me (who doesn't want to destroy my kit) - I'll be safer OC'ing a 980ti.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I think you will find this Maxwell core is quite operational... your faith in AMD is your weakness.  (seeing as NV is the dark side for you )



Comment of the day. Copied for signature.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

Holy Mother of God....

http://www.galaxstore.net/GALAX-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-HOF-6GB-LN2-p/98irh5dhf9lt.htm

Ahahahhahahahahahhahhahhahahahahhashahahahhahahhahaha - Found my card:



> GALAX designed the new 12 layer PCB entirely from the ground up with triple 8-pin connections supplying a competition grade 16+3 phase power delivery system. The state-of-the-art IR PWM solution with 3595 controller, 3550 DR MOS and 3599 doubler maintains voltage with surgeon-like precision, yet wields brutal 960 amp maximum capacity. *When you want to go all-in for the top clock, you have the option of completely disabling all thermal shutdown failsafes and power limits via onboard manual override switch*, all while receiving critical feedback from integrated voltage read points and customizable LED indicators.



Screw you Nvidia! Galax saves the day with very expensive and utterly combustible card.  I love how they say so innocently "disable all thermal fail safes".  Su-fucking-perb!


----------



## purecain (Jun 25, 2015)

ok ive just paid 500pounds for a Fury X. I wanted a 980ti, only I decided to yet again support the smaller company.

I have to wait 3 weeks for the card.
 it isn't faster than a 980ti 70% of the time. and uses more power. so why did I buy the weaker card?
for no other reason than wanting to support companies using new technology. 
so my card will be part of the second retail batch in the EU. 
I will post up the performance of my fury x when I receive my card. I confess I didn't know about hdmi 2.0 support not being on the card.
come on amd, send me some special silicon. i'm hoping I don't regret my decision.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Holy Mother of God....
> 
> http://www.galaxstore.net/GALAX-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-HOF-6GB-LN2-p/98irh5dhf9lt.htm
> 
> ...


 That sounds...Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the most amazing non-reference design sounding card ever.  If I could have three of them with some liquid blocks I might actually buy them up just to see how far I could push them!!!


----------



## Jborg (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Holy Mother of God....
> 
> http://www.galaxstore.net/GALAX-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-HOF-6GB-LN2-p/98irh5dhf9lt.htm
> 
> ...


 
Thats one smexy 980ti.....


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> That sounds...Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That is the most amazing non-reference design sounding card ever.  If I could have three of them with some liquid blocks I might actually buy them up just to see how far I could push them!!!



I'm chuckling as I type but it's ....ahem.... *$200 more* than the standard Galax 980ti HOF edition. looooooool.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 25, 2015)

Well, I was hoping for more gusto from the Fury X.  I still haven't decided whether to upgrade now or later.  On one hand, I'm content with what is still superb performance from my 780. On the other hand, the overwhelming whoopass factor of the 980Ti is appealing in a big way. 

So, I'm in a big fence-sitting mode now: Wait until Pascal, or get 980Ti in about 6 months.  In any case, I'm no longer  considering the Fury X.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm chuckling as I type but it's ....ahem.... *$200 more* than the standard Galax 980ti HOF edition. looooooool.



For that price they must include a water block also for their custom mess... Otherwise what's the point of that VRM other than epeen extension. It must be burned... and not definitely not on air.

About the OC potential... when the voltmods will start, then we will see the real situation... so far the pussy clocking via CCC... well are you serious?


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm chuckling as I type but it's ....ahem.... *$200 more* than the standard Galax 980ti HOF edition. looooooool.


 Well then...So its essentially the cost of a Titan X at that point.  but I am willing to bet I could squeeze much more performance out of it lol.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jun 25, 2015)

purecain said:


> ok ive just paid 500pounds for a Fury X. I wanted a 980ti, only I decided to yet again support the smaller company.
> 
> I have to wait 3 weeks for the card.
> it isn't faster than a 980ti 70% of the time. and uses more power. so why did I buy the weaker card?
> ...



I honestly don't think you will be disappointed with it mate. Its a solid card.
Just about every review site I've seen recommend it no matter how good the 980 ti is.
I sure as hell wouldn't mind one over my 980. Fury x should get better over time with driver updates to bud.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> For that price they must include a water block also for their custom mess... Otherwise what's the point of that VRM other than epeen extension. It must be burned... and not definitely not on air.
> 
> About the OC potential... when the voltmods will start, then we will see the real situation... so far the pussy clocking via CCC... well are you serious?



No block - it is LN edition for a reason - it's not really for people like me.  I'd love to order one but I'd need a water block and the PCB is not the same as the HOF edition.  Need to contact EKWB....

As far as Fury X OC and CCC?  It's not about CCC - I think it's near it's limit.  Time will tell but until then, it's a poor OC'er and that's all that matters right now (it's not logical to blindly expect it to OC better later).


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 25, 2015)

I suspect as other have said, the ROPs are probably holding Fury X back. As we can see its 4k performance isn't half bad but it seems to get worse as you get to lower resolutions. I think that might be because at higher resolutions, the shaders are doing more work prepping data so there is a bias towards need more shader compute power. At lower resolutions, more frames get pumped out and the amount of work the shaders have to do is less, putting more strain on the ROPs (complete speculation,) so it may not be unrealistic that more complex scenes at lower resolutions *may* excel on Fury X. I suspect this is another case of AMD optimizing for good performance on one measure that isn't what the majority of the market wants. It's kind of like how AMD thought that going with "moar cores" was going to solve the performance problem and it didn't.

So in summary: I suspect that higher frame rates in general benefit from extra ROPs when the shaders aren't the primary bottleneck.

Side note: Does anyone remember when you could overclock the Core domain separate from the shader domain on nVidia GPUs (last one I had that could do that was a GeForce 8600 GTS.) It's too bad you can't just overclock certain parts of the GPU like the ROPs, the shaders, or the cache. This is a complaint for both camps IMHO. With that said, it would clearly be highly architecture dependent.


----------



## PaNiC (Jun 25, 2015)

Fury X. I like single slot with ek water block better and i think it'll get bigger boost with dx12. I wish AMD dropped the price by $50 to $100


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> No block - it is LN edition



That's why it is more than shady... external supply board and go on... if your luck is bad and the sucker doesn't clock even David Hasselhoff himself won't help you for sure. Yes naturally you can order a custom block, but the overall price won't justify it. If one goes for records, cherry picking in the store is always an essential start of the venture.

Well CCC clocking has always been buggy actually and gave worse results from my experience, some drivers even broke it in funny ways, I bet the transition states driving VRM and reading the voltage table causes that... We will see first custom partner cards, and then we will continue AMD rape fest further, at least with more confidence and arguments.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 25, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Side note: Does anyone remember when you could overclock the Core domain separate from the shader domain on nVidia GPUs (last one I had that could do that was a GeForce 8600 GTS.) It's too bad you can't just overclock certain parts of the GPU like the ROPs, the shaders, or the cache. This is a complaint for both camps IMHO. With that said, it would clearly be highly architecture dependent.



Same thing happened with CPU overclocking, we lost control over pretty much everything except multiplier and turbo with Intel, due to integration of more and more components on the cpu die itself. Can't really say it's a complaint for me, simplification also makes overclocking more accessible.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> That's why it is more than shady... external supply board and go on... if your luck is bad and the sucker doesn't clock even David Hasselhoff himself won't help you for sure. Yes naturally you can order a custom block, but the overall price won't justify it. If one goes for records, cherry picking in the store is always an essential start of the venture.
> 
> Well CCC clocking has always been buggy actually and gave worse results from my experience, some drivers even broke it in funny ways, I bet the transition states driving VRM and reading the voltage table causes that... We will see first custom partner cards, and then we will continue AMD rape fest further, at least with more confidence and arguments.



It's not shady. It's clearly sold to the crazy over clocking enthusiasts, of which I am not. I'm attracted to the TDP 'kill switch'. 
These products, like the Kingpin cards are not for simply gaming. It's a gamble to buy but with some skill you can get great OC results. 
You don't overclock then hell, get a Fury X or a 980ti. Those are now the top dogs.


----------



## erixx (Jun 25, 2015)

without screen size (4K, blablabla) this poll makes no sense at all.
Image quality is about the same with any of those cards, it  is just a performance/money drama. It is like asking wat car is better!!!


----------



## v12dock (Jun 25, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Which one did you get (Not that it matter much but I am just curious)?
> 
> 
> Same Question, which one did you buy and what made you change your mind.



XFX, I almost bought the 980ti but I just can't get excited for Nvidia Cards and one was in stock. Also I figure the driver support are pretty awful for the Fury X right now so I'm anticipating a 5%-10% performance improvement in the next 6-12 Months. Unfortunately FedEx bumped delivery to tomorrow, it didn't ship until 9:30 last night.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

erixx said:


> without screen size (4K, blablabla) this poll makes no sense at all.
> Image quality is about the same with any of those cards, it  is just a performance/money drama. It is like asking wat car is better!!!



Obviously the one with go faster stripes.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> It's not shady. It's clearly sold to the crazy over clocking enthusiasts, of which I am not. I'm attracted to the TDP 'kill switch'.
> These products, like the Kingpin cards are not for simply gaming. It's a gamble to buy but with some skill you can get great OC results.
> You don't overclock then hell, get a Fury X or a 980ti. Those are now the top dogs.


>associating gaming performance with the "ability" to overclock
gone gone gone are the days where you could take a 4850 and overclock it to 4870 performance that just doesn't happen anymoar
the performance gap between "price-tiers" now a days is massive
you are not going to take a 290x and overclock it to FuryX speeds or even close ...
the furyX is for 4K and beyond ... its one advantage is that 512GB/s memory bandwidth something you can not leverage at anything less then 2K _)unless you are using VSR Or a shitton of MSAA)


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

Erm, except you could turn HD5850 into HD5870, HD6950 into HD6970 and HD7950 into HD7970 just by overclocking them. Yeah, I had all of the mentioned cards and overclocked all of them so far they matched their faster brothers (in some cases even exceeded them)...


----------



## bpgt64 (Jun 25, 2015)

Ehh...how many of these can you crossfire together?  and water cool?  cause there single slot?  That to me is the biggest achievement.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

980Ti beats the Titan X in most cases. 


AMD/ATI have had a longer standing following of tweaker-tuner-modders than Nvidia. Hell look at the original Omega drivers, turned a 7000 into a 7500. 


This is a moot point though, at the end of the day ATI/AMD have had a poor record of vaporware in software and some hardware, and I have been using them for the majority of my personal hardware and hundreds of builds since the early days. They put their eggs in the wrong (Tonga) basket this time around, and their crystal ball was cloudy. They have two options, get driver fixes out for this card, and make damn sure the retail cards get a performance bump, or lose another round of profit due to overenthusiastic dreams. 


If they released a Tahiti or Hawaii chip with double the resources, as the 295X shows, they would have won, and without the power draw of double the DDR5, and the bridge chip it still would have won. But they didn't. They could have easily mopped the floor with that, they could have put a gap between two parts of the card and completely turned off one half during light gaming or when FPS were over 120, they could have cut the UVD out and put it on separate real estate and kept unloaded power consumption at 20W but they didn't.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 25, 2015)

It's too bad that there isn't a GDDR5 variant of Fiji. I'm curious how much HBM actually contributes to performance, if at all.

The one thing I will say for the Fury X, at least they managed to improve the multi-monitor idle usage which is nice as it's now also the same as the single monitor idle usage. I found that very intriguing.


----------



## SASBehrooz (Jun 25, 2015)

Still GTX 970. 
Always buy price point video cards and save your money.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

Anyone knows when vanilla air cooled R9 Fury is suppose to be released? I know I've seen it somewhere but forgot. Only R9 Nano is announced, but no date given...


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 25, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I think you will find this Maxwell core is quite operational... your faith in AMD is your weakness.  (seeing as NV is the dark side for you )


We both know how "well" that goes for your "fully operational" Maxwell core. (seeing as you missed the moral of the story )






Little guy smokes the big guy = I win

Thank you...and good night!


----------



## johnspack (Jun 25, 2015)

I would pick 970,  but at 450-475can after taxes and shipping,  I'll wait for used ones.  Jeez,  midrange card at what used to be high end card prices.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> We both know how "well" that goes for your "fully operational" Maxwell core. (seeing as you missed the moral of the story )
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, My good sir I doth my hat to thee - "you have me now" would be my appropriate quote.

But as Ben Kinobi said, "who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows?"

; )


----------



## Jborg (Jun 25, 2015)

johnspack said:


> I would pick 970,  but at 450-475can after taxes and shipping,  I'll wait for used ones.  Jeez,  midrange card at what used to be high end card prices.


 
450$ for a GTX 970 is high.... Is that the price in Canada?

They are on Newegg for 340$, and Ive seen used ones here on the forums for sub-300$ price.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 25, 2015)

Yeah,  that's after taxes and shipping from ncix.  Haven't found one yet for under 400can before taxes ect....  pricey dam things.


----------



## Jborg (Jun 25, 2015)

johnspack said:


> Yeah,  that's after taxes and shipping from ncix.  Haven't found one yet for under 400can before taxes ect....  pricey dam things.


 
Theres a deal for ya...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gigabyte-gtx970-gaming-g1-gpu-2-available.213370/


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 25, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> Not likely to happen anytime soon, esp now that Fury X is being shown to not be able to beat it. It's no doubt why Nvidia chose to release their top shelf Ti version sooner than usual.
> 
> Anyone know when 980 Ti aftermarket cooled cards will be out btw? Still seeing just the reference ones.
> 
> Anyway, I envy the guys getting sent free samples of them, reference or not. I was just musing over the fact that two 980 Tis would cost more than I paid for both my dental crowns!




I have 970s in sli, trust me when i say i can wait for prices to drop


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 25, 2015)

I think AMD royally screwed something software side with the Fury X so I'm just going to wait fro 15.7 or 15.8 drivers before I do anything. ATM I have this and it kicks ass.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Anyone knows when vanilla air cooled R9 Fury is suppose to be released? I know I've seen it somewhere but forgot. Only R9 Nano is announced, but no date given...



You should totally get a Fury X man. I entertained the thought of having a 980ti
Briefly before finally settled for fury X.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 25, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> sorry but WHAT? you compare Fury X to bulldozer???





Aquinus said:


> I suspect this is another case of AMD optimizing for good performance on one measure that isn't what the majority of the market wants. It's kind of like how AMD thought that going with "moar cores" was going to solve the performance problem and it didn't.


----------



## Loosenut (Jun 25, 2015)

Jborg said:


> Theres a deal for ya...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gigabyte-gtx970-gaming-g1-gpu-2-available.213370/



Seller only ships in the US.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 25, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


>


sorry but nope.

bulldozer was a failure, yes, the fury line is not ... the perf are here and it compete in her price range the Titan X performances are not relevant to say the Fury is a failure. (price to price and perf to perf.)

the comparison is off.



Loosenut said:


> Seller only ships in the US.


luckily ... you have a 290 ... why would you get a 970  get a 980Ti at last and make it worth it. 

ok on a 400$ price range better check a 290X or a 390X 

i also have a 290 and as i wrote previously nothing is a upgrade unless 980Ti Fury line (waiting on Nano and vanilla reviews ) and Titan X (if i did won the lottery ... but i would still take a 980Ti SLI or a Fury X CFX over a Titanics... oh again ... Titan X sorry )


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> sorry but nope.
> 
> bulldozer was a failure, yes, the fury line is not ... the perf are here and it compete in her price range the Titan X performances are not relevant to say the Fury is a failure. (price to price and perf to perf.)
> 
> ...





Fury is a failure in efficiency compared to prior generations, and compared to the 295X. 

Tahiti 7970/280X was faster per clock and per shader than Tonga. We knew this when the 285 came out and was tested, it was a mediocre card then and it still is now.
They doubled the lower performing hardware to make a card that is 20% slower than it should have been. In what world does that make sense? Its like making a crappy dinner and then eating twice as much to make up for it being crappy. Its like strapping two Yugo cars together for twice the power. 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

The 295X is 24% faster in 4K despite being a dual GPU card. 
 The 280X is 40% slower with half the GPU resources and 1Gb less VMEM at 1080P and its OLD!
The 390X is 13% slower at 1080P
The 285X is 46% slower at 1080P


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

I wouldn't say Fury X is a failure. Fury costs 680€, GTX 980Ti costs 676€ (Geizhals.de). Performance and cost wise they are basically the same, trading punches. But Fury has a way more advanced cooling system that can be a lot quieter and cooler. It's also a lot more flexible to stuff inside small cases because the "mass" is not centered around the PCIe slot. Power consumption with cooling like this is irrelevant. Someone who can't afford a proper 750W PSU most likely also won't ever buy anything like Fury X anyway...


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 25, 2015)

Steevo said:


> Its like strapping two Yugo cars together for twice the power.


Except that actually works. For more power. Not that anyone should do it.

And I actually agree with everything else you said there. But that was a particularly poor analogy. Saying that is like saying having 2 horses pulling your wagon, instead of 1, doesn't make it twice as easy to be pulled up a hill. When in fact it does.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Performance and cost wise they are basically the same...



Only at 4K, for those on 1080p or 1440p 120Hz or 144Hz displays, the obvious choice is the 980 Ti.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 25, 2015)

Steevo said:


> The 390X is 13% slower at 1080P


With this in mind I really don't see how they are going to squeeze in the nano to the lineup.
If Fiji gets any slower it might as well be last gen tech, who's going to buy the nano @ 450-500$ when the 390x is 5~10% slower @ 400$ or less then throw nvidia in that mix and it makes even less sense just like the R9-285

Estimating.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I wouldn't say Fury X is a failure. Fury costs 680€, GTX 980Ti costs 676€ (Geizhals.de). Performance and cost wise they are basically the same, trading punches. But Fury has a way more advanced cooling system that can be a lot quieter and cooler. It's also a lot more flexible to stuff inside small cases because the "mass" is not centered around the PCIe slot. Power consumption with cooling like this is irrelevant. Someone who can't afford a proper 750W PSU most likely also won't ever buy anything like Fury X anyway...




I have custom liquid cooling, am still using 1080 until I can buy a 4K TV with DisplayPort for less than $3000 at 50+ inches. I would love to be able to run a single card that will do 1080 at 60FPS at max settings, and that card is a 980Ti. Also a card that could power a 4K TV with decent framerates, that is still the 980Ti. 



MrGenius said:


> Except that actually works. For more power. Not that anyone should do it.
> 
> And I actually agree with everything else you said there. But that was a particularly poor analogy. Saying that is like saying having 2 horses pulling your wagon, instead of 1, doesn't make it twice as easy to be pulled up a hill. When in fact it does.



No, no it doesn't, nothing scales perfectly, and if one Yugo can go up a hill at 30MPH, then two might go 40MPH as it weighs twice as much, two trucks can't pull twice as much as one truck, two horses don't make it twice as easy as all the other overhead involved doubles too. 

Hawaii was faster than Tonga, and its only downfall was sheer transistor efficiency to thermal flux made it a bitch to cool.

Fury is less efficient in performance metrics other than power consumption than almost any newer card.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

Fury X has just been released, GTX 980Ti has technically been around since the end of year 2014. Clearly AMD will need a bit of time to catch up driver wise. Core is brand new and HBM behaves wastly different than normal memory. I wouldn't write them off just yet...


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Fury X has just been released, GTX 980Ti has technically been around since the end of year 2014. Clearly AMD will need a bit of time to catch up driver wise. Core is brand new and HBM behaves wastly different than normal memory. I wouldn't write them off just yet...




Look at the comparison to the 285X, its exactly where it should be.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

R9-285 is a pilot project that was never intended to compete with anything. They were just poking the new tech with that, just like they were poking the tech with HD7790 before they released R9-290 series...


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> R9-285 is a pilot project that was never intended to compete with anything. They were just poking the new tech with that, just like they were poking the tech with HD7790 before they released R9-290 series...




The fuck are you smoking? 285 came out AFTER the 290, and was supposed to be a cheaper Tahiti, and it was, kinda, and a failure in performance compared to Tahiti.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 25, 2015)

what remains to be seen is how reliable the pump is 
I see a coolermaster logo which is worrisome ...


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

Steevo said:


> The fuck are you smoking? 285 came out AFTER the 290, and was supposed to be a cheaper Tahiti, and it was, kinda, and a failure in performance compared to Tahiti.



Deary me, I've been grinding this for days before the Fury X release...

HD7900 (GCN 1.0) -> HD7790 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-290 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-285 (GCN 1.2) -> Fury (GCN 1.2)

Spot the trend? See how a lower model number with NEWER tech gets released LATER? Yeah...


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Deary me, I've been grinding this for days before the Fury X release...
> 
> HD7900 (GCN 1.0) -> HD7790 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-290 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-285 (GCN 1.2) -> Fury (GCN 1.2)
> 
> Spot the trend? See how a lower model number with NEWER tech gets released LATER? Yeah...



7970=280X-->285X(lower performance) higher model, less performance. 


See how that works? Its like buying a corvette with the minvan engine being sold as a "feature". Sure you bought this to go fast and look good, but with this model you will look good and it costs the same!!! What a great deal!!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











Or we could say, AMD has decided they want less performance, and are focusing their attention on attaining that goal.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 26, 2015)

Whens Pascal supposed to ruffly come out like Q1,2,3,4? If I've waited this long I might just re use my current gpu but upgrade to skylake.


----------



## Devon68 (Jun 26, 2015)

From the given options the GTX 980ti is my choice, but I'm sticking to my card for at least a year more


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

Steevo said:


> 7970=280X-->285X(lower performance) higher model, less performance.
> 
> 
> See how that works? Its like buying a corvette with the minvan engine being sold as a "feature". Sure you bought this to go fast and look good, but with this model you will look good and it costs the same!!! What a great deal!!!!
> ...



You know what, fuck it. I see you clearly don't understand development cycles despite myself repeating like a broken record... Because GTX 750Ti was also the pinnacle of performance right? You know, the first Maxwell? No? It wasn't? I wonder why...


----------



## mastrdrver (Jun 26, 2015)

mroofie said:


> *12_1* Conservative Rasterization Tier 1, Rasterizer Ordered Views.
> 
> Nvidia GeForce 900 series (Maxwell, 2nd gen);[17][18][19][20][21]
> Nvidia GeForce 1000 series (Pascal)
> ...



Your right as I wording my statement incorrectly. I meant to say this:

Despite being pleonastic, it is worth to restate that *feature level 12.1 does not coincide with an imaginary “full/complete DirectX 12 support”* since it does not cover many important or secondary features exposed by Direct3D 12.

The way you worded your statement originally made it sound like 12_0<12_1. Though I've only had a few hours of sleep this week, so I may be reading more than what is actually there.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> You know what, fuck it. I see you clearly don't understand development cycles despite myself repeating like a broken record... Because GTX 750Ti was also the pinnacle of performance right? You know, the first Maxwell? No? It wasn't? I wonder why...


As a development cycle, Tonga can be seen as a very slight improvement or decline depending upon the workload.
R9 285 ( 1792 core, 112 TAU, 32 ROP, 32 CU) has a 8% core speed and 10% memory speed bump over its direct descendant, the HD 7950 ( 1792 core, 112 TAU, 32 ROP, 28 CU), for a 10.6%-12.8% performance increase (latest chart that has both cards) and 7% power increase - which would have undoubtedly been higher had AMD not culled FP64 from Tahiti's 1:4 rate to the 1:16 rate of Tonga. The Tonga die is 2% larger ( 359mm vs 352) and balances some of the FP64 loss with increased geometry and compute functionality thanks to the four extra compute units.

All in all, it is pretty much a wash. If anything, Tahiti to Tonga is a sideways shift in emphasis to a more gaming-centric GPU.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 26, 2015)

Steevo said:


> No, no it doesn't, nothing scales perfectly, and if one Yugo can go up a hill at 30MPH, then two might go 40MPH as it weighs twice as much, two trucks can't pull twice as much as one truck, two horses don't make it twice as easy as all the other overhead involved doubles too.


Power ≠ Speed.  And oh yes they can. And it's called Horse Power for a reason.

Such a dumb argument for a tech forum. Meet me over on the 4WD forums. If you want to get schooled on mechanics. Brush up on your physics first. I ain't got time to teach you everything there is to know about it.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> Power ≠ Speed.  And oh yes they can. And it's called Horse Power for a reason.
> 
> Such a dumb argument for a tech forum. Meet me over on the 4WD forums. If you want to get schooled on mechanics. Brush up on your physics first. I ain't got time to teach you everything there is to know about it.




You are right, I know nothing of horsepower, mechanics, or anything....


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> But Fury has a way more advanced cooling system that can be a lot quieter and cooler.



I _can_ be, but it isn't quieter.  At load it is basically the same as a 980Ti with an aftermarket cooler, but at idle it is way way way louder.  In fact, at idle it is literally infinitely louder.

Yes, it is cooler, but we're talking 10-15°C and as the 980Ti stays under throttle temp(which is does easily) then the final temp doesn't matter.



RejZoR said:


> It's also a lot more flexible to stuff inside small cases because the "mass" is not centered around the PCIe slot.



This is sort of true, but also it is hard to route AIO water cooling in a small case.  And while the PCB might be shorter, you have to account for about an extra 2" because of the tubing sticking out the back.  So it really isn't as small as it seems.



RejZoR said:


> Power consumption with cooling like this is irrelevant.



Not really, that power consumption is still being converted into heat.  That heat has to go somewhere.  The card puts out enough heat to noticeably affect the temperature of your room.  And that is best case if you can manage to attached the rad to an open 120mm exhaust.  If you have to just leave the rad hanging the case, it will heat up all your components.  And I fell bad for anyone that tries to Crossfire two of these.  Good luck mounting two 120mm AIO rads, most cases don't have the ability to do that in a nice easy way.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 26, 2015)

Since the argument over GPUs is getting pretty...watered down... let's understand some real mechanics.  So @Steevo and @MrGenius, let's review mechanics.

1) Engine output is in some form of energy.  The drive train converts rotational forces into linear forces.  The logical measurement is Joules.  The imperial measurement is horsepower.  Joules and hp have a direct mathematical relationship.
2) Strapping two Yugos together will in fact double your loading capacity.  This is self evident, as when broken apart they would each have half the output energy of the pairing.  I'm not sure where this conclusion sprouted from, but you're wrong about towing capacity not scaling linearly.
3) Speed is, quite possibly, the least usefull measure you could make.  Doubling engine output doesn't double speed, because the relationship between kinetic energy and mass is e=1/2*m*v^2.  This means that to double speed you quadruple kinetic energy.  Thus if the maximum velocity of a Yugo in a vacuum is 30 mph, then 4 Yugos power output would allow the vehicle to travel 60 mph.  Of course, that's assuming a vacuum, as air resistance also increases non-linearly with velocity.



If we were to actually adapt this example to GPUs, I'd recommend transmissions as the way to go about this.
1) The output from a single GPU is pretty much equivalent to that of an engine.  They produce power at a set level, and its efficiency is locked.  You can OC a GPU (or change fuel-air ratios on a car), but even then the output becomes a slightly higher constant.
2) SLI and Crossfire take the input energy, make sure the loading on each GPU matches demand, and then outputs video.  Likewise, a transmission between two engines would have to balance engine output to prevent damage, and the balancing of said loads dissipates some of your power.  Thus, in both GPUs and transmissions some power is lost due to management overhead.
3) Likewise, a single GPU or engine is more efficient than two.  Without having to balance the loading you've got a minimal loss due to outside influences (friction is cars, communication protocols is computers).  This is exactly what we see in practice.
4) Despite being less efficient, hooking up two GPUs or engines will always yield more power.  It's self evident, but has to be stated for posterity.



Edit:
Changed some of the wording.  It sounded overly harsh, and potentially inflamatory on a re-read.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2015)

I made it to two Yugos in a vacuum. 

Serious question, is that really what you thought when I said two Yugos will not go faster than one? 
Put them in a Vacuum......


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> I _can_ be, but it isn't quieter.  At load it is basically the same as a 980Ti with an aftermarket cooler, but at idle it is way way way louder.  In fact, at idle it is literally infinitely louder.
> 
> Yes, it is cooler, but we're talking 10-15°C and as the 980Ti stays under throttle temp(which is does easily) then the final temp doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



I've already established that idiots create fan curves for graphic cards. My HD7950 WindForce 3X with massive cooler was noisy as fuck with factory settings. Now I have it overclocked with 200MHz extra on the core with BIOS applied overvolt and it's absolutely silent because I've modified the fan curve. I've modified when it starts increasing from idle and decreased the high RPM for load. There is absolutely no need to keep temperature below 60°C on such a massive cooler and listen retarded fan noise even with mild load. Now the fan only kicks in when i really make a big load on the GPU and it becomes as noisy at it was before. But with normal full load, it never even makes an audible noise...


----------



## Frick (Jun 26, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> Such a dumb argument for a tech forum. Meet me over on the 4WD forums. If you want to get schooled on mechanics. Brush up on your physics first. I ain't got time to teach you everything there is to know about it.



This is an insulting and sarcastic tangent, but since you clearly have schooled us all on technology on this forum, I'm excited to find out what marvelous things you can teach Steevo about mechanics. (seriously though you are, as the lil' hoff demonstrates, probably talking about different things, and it is always stupid to bring cars into a discussion about computers it just _never _works @Steevo )


----------



## Aceman.au (Jun 26, 2015)

I have used AMD all my PC gaming life, I tried Nvidia once which ended with a return due to faulty card, I'm willing to give Nvidia a second chance here and I'm probably going to get a single 980 ti.


----------



## Pill Monster (Jun 26, 2015)

Steevo said:


> 980Ti beats the Titan X in most cases.
> 
> 
> AMD/ATI have had a longer standing following of tweaker-tuner-modders than Nvidia. Hell look at the original Omega drivers, turned a 7000 into a 7500.
> ...





Steevo said:


> Fury is a failure in efficiency compared to prior generations, and compared to the 295X.
> 
> Tahiti 7970/280X was faster per clock and per shader than Tonga. We knew this when the 285 came out and was tested, it was a mediocre card then and it still is now.
> They doubled the lower performing hardware to make a card that is 20% slower than it should have been. In what world does that make sense? Its like making a crappy dinner and then eating twice as much to make up for it being crappy. Its like strapping two Yugo cars together for twice the power.
> ...





Steevo said:


> I have custom liquid cooling, am still using 1080 until I can buy a 4K TV with DisplayPort for less than $3000 at 50+ inches. I would love to be able to run a single card that will do 1080 at 60FPS at max settings, and that card is a 980Ti. Also a card that could power a 4K TV with decent framerates, that is still the 980Ti.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol... Man oh man there are so many holes here I don't know where to start....
It's like Swiss cheese....

The 295X was a success?  AMD has always supported modding?   drivers can turn a 7000 into a 7500?  links please.  And Omega drivers had nothing to  AMD btw, they certainly were not sanctioned by them.    Where do u come up with this stuff?   7990 was crap and failed also so there's another.    The 285 never succeeded Tahiti it was a side Project as Rejzor told u.    

285x is 256bit and 2GB vram and u wonder why it's slower than Tahiti...... It helps to know hardware specs, not assume things.... 


7990 didn't have the PCB space to fit adequate vrm phase controllers so it was never gonna match Tahiti in CFX.   AMD have terrible CFX support anyway so it's no surprise the dual GPU's flop.  Great scaling first requires great drivers. 

Mate you ever wanna sit down and talk about testing u'd learn a lot.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Deary me, I've been grinding this for days before the Fury X release...
> 
> HD7900 (GCN 1.0) -> HD7790 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-290 (GCN 1.1) -> R9-285 (GCN 1.2) -> Fury (GCN 1.2)
> 
> Spot the trend? See how a lower model number with NEWER tech gets released LATER? Yeah...



Yeah, I spot the same trend as Nvidia did with the GTX 750 ti. Except the 750ti actually works better. And then they built a 970 and we know how that went down.

Tonga was a fucking failure as a replacement 280X and it does not scale well across different resolutions either when coupled with HBM. The efficiency gains are not coming from Tonga, but from HBM. Tonga itself is just a pilot project seeing how slow they can make GCN, or how they can do a Maxwell, but they failed at it.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

For the love of all that's still holy on this planet, R9-285 (Tonga) was *NOT* a replacement for *ANYTHING*.


----------



## Pill Monster (Jun 26, 2015)

It must be, didn't u see the #5 at the end?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> For the love of all that's still holy on this planet, R9-285 (Tonga) was *NOT* a replacement for *ANYTHING*.



It is going to be eventually. The only reason we still have 280X and now the 3xx rebrands is because they can't lose their stock of old stuff and because the performance gaps at the higher end are minimal at best. Why would they otherwise not have used Tonga elsewhere? They can't scale R9 290(x) up any further because of board power limits, Tonga is the only way to go forward for them, which is why we see it in the Fury X as well. R9 285 was touted as much more than it really turned out to be, just like Fury X.

All other options going forward for AMD are end-of-life or at board power limits. Tonga is their only way to go now. Or do you see them rebranding Hawaii to R9 490? (They actually might, given the lack of efficiency gains on Tonga, when they have access to a smaller node!)

As others have also predicted, positioning the R9 Fury and the Nano in their current product stacks is going to leave very, very small performance gaps that really don't justify a separate product. So Tonga is going to be the chip that will phase out the old stuff - eventually. R9 285 taught AMD that if they would have done so today at 28nm on regular non-HBM products they would actually reduce the relative perfomance of the entire product stack and force themselves to push a limited-quantity product as their only enthusiast option. By sticking with Hawaii, they end up being able to produce several versions of the Tonga-based Fury with HBM.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

No, the rebranding to R9-490 will most likely be the current Fury X/Fury if they continue current tradition... Hopefully it won't and they'll deliver proper DX12.1 cards for R9-400 generation. Even if it's mostly based on current Fury with few updates to the core itself.


----------



## newconroer (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Because single card will always be problem free. I have yet to see a multi GPU setup that is not riddled with idiotic problems and constant waiting for the dumb game profiles to become available...



I have never had a mutli GPU setup with the a-typical problems that people complain about, whether ATi, AMD or Nvidia.
And bad drivers/profiles affect all cards regardless of the setup.

It's 2015. Between knowledge of frame latency, frame pacing and the near 98% scaling that cards can achieve, there's no reason to be afraid of multi-gpu arrangements.
We should be encouraging awareness of the effectiveness of Crossfire and SLI. It is a cost conscious approach to giving people the performance they deserve - instead of forking out ridiculous money for a product that's inferior.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

It is 2015, but 99,99% of games are still DX11, meaning you'll have all the bullshit. Things will only change with DX12...


----------



## met (Jun 26, 2015)

Just picked up a sapphire dual x 280 R9 for $125 and included Dirt.  no brainer! wouldn't pay half for this card. unnecessary.  my machine will play anything and looks great on my 42" TV! looks like i can pick up another card and hook up the cross fire and STILL have another $400 to save and wait until the fury is $399 and has a rebate, plus gives you 2 games in a year and a half. But what will be out then?!  planned obsolescence kids! i say stay away.  and if companies make games and this is a necessary tool?  stay away from the games.  all these consoles pretty much have the same games, including the pc, and yet people flock to buy multiple gaming consoles??  they are robbing everyone blind! PC gamers know the deal. still play games from the 90's on my x64 OS on RAMdisk and origins, hitman, TR, AC, DIRT3, and Rally, and no tearing, no skipping, and best of all i lowered my quad core down to 3200 from 3900 mhrz and nothing changed (including the temps, much, lol), so NOPE! be flying for a decade on my home build playing games for $5 from steam with so many side missions and tasks that wont even hear about this again for years.


----------



## horik (Jun 26, 2015)

I was looking at a Gigabyte GTX970 that I would love to get if Nano will be a disappointment.
So after the newest AMD launches that card dropped in price over 40€ to 325€, now is up at 351€...
Maybe retailers saw that AMD cards are not selling and people buys Nvidia?


----------



## HD64G (Jun 26, 2015)

Steevo said:


> Fury is a failure in efficiency compared to prior generations, and compared to the 295X.
> 
> Tahiti 7970/280X was faster per clock and per shader than Tonga. We knew this when the 285 came out and was tested, it was a mediocre card then and it still is now.
> They doubled the lower performing hardware to make a card that is 20% slower than it should have been. In what world does that make sense? Its like making a crappy dinner and then eating twice as much to make up for it being crappy. Its like strapping two Yugo cars together for twice the power.
> ...



Why other comparisons in 1080P and others in 4K? You are too selective in your comparisons to be objective in your opinion. Fury is made ONLY for 1440P and above. No point to refer to its power in 1080P where it destroys everything eitherwise. And drivers are to give a lot (>5% imo) with the new HBM-tech memory which is 1st time used in PC. And Fury Nano will be the best product of the line if price is correct.

As for if Fury X has good performance or not: http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/test...ry_x_vs_geforce_gtx_980_ti_benchmarks/s02.php


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 26, 2015)

HD64G said:


> Why other comparisons in 1080P and others in 4K? You are too selective in your comparisons to be objective in your opinion. Fury is made ONLY for 1440P and above. No point to refer to its power in 1080P where it destroys everything eitherwise. And drivers are to give a lot (>5% imo) with the new HBM-tech memory which is 1st time used in PC. And Fury Nano will be the best product of the line if price is correct.


 
Actually, in 1080P in over half the benchmarks didn't the 980Ti and sometimes even the 980 beat it?  So that's not a "destroyed everything."  At least that's what I remember from W1zzard's benchmarks.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 26, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> It is going to be eventually. The only reason we still have 280X and now the 3xx rebrands is because they can't lose their stock of old stuff and because the performance gaps at the higher end are minimal at best. *Why would they otherwise not have used Tonga elsewhere*? They can't scale R9 290(x) up any further because of board power limits, Tonga is the only way to go forward for them, which is why we see it in the Fury X as well. R9 285 was touted as much more than it really turned out to be, just like Fury X.
> 
> All other options going forward for AMD are end-of-life or at board power limits. Tonga is their only way to go now. Or do you see them rebranding Hawaii to R9 490? (They actually might, given the lack of efficiency gains on Tonga, when they have access to a smaller node!)
> 
> As others have also predicted, positioning the R9 Fury and the Nano in their current product stacks is going to leave very, very small performance gaps that really don't justify a separate product. So Tonga is going to be the chip that will phase out the old stuff - eventually. R9 285 taught AMD that if they would have done so today at 28nm on regular non-HBM products they would actually reduce the relative perfomance of the entire product stack and force themselves to push a limited-quantity product as their only enthusiast option. By sticking with Hawaii, they end up being able to produce several versions of the Tonga-based Fury with HBM.



The R9 380 sports the Tonga "Pro" core as I understand it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I've already established that idiots create fan curves for graphic cards. My HD7950 WindForce 3X with massive cooler was noisy as fuck with factory settings. Now I have it overclocked with 200MHz extra on the core with BIOS applied overvolt and it's absolutely silent because I've modified the fan curve. I've modified when it starts increasing from idle and decreased the high RPM for load. There is absolutely no need to keep temperature below 60°C on such a massive cooler and listen retarded fan noise even with mild load. Now the fan only kicks in when i really make a big load on the GPU and it becomes as noisy at it was before. But with normal full load, it never even makes an audible noise...



Yes, but a big part of the noise on the Fury X is the pump whine.  Adjusting the fan curve isn't going to fix that.  Especially not at idle when the 980Ti is dead silent and the Fury X is just sitting there whining away.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> For the love of all that's still holy on this planet, R9-285 (Tonga) was *NOT* a replacement for *ANYTHING*.


Well technically it was the replacement for the R9 280, I think it was meant to test the waters a bit while also making a cheaper to produce R9 280 (HD 7950).



newtekie1 said:


> I _can_ be, but it isn't quieter.  At load it is basically the same as a 980Ti with an aftermarket cooler, but at idle it is way way way louder.  In fact, at idle it is literally infinitely louder.
> Yes, it is cooler, but we're talking 10-15°C and as the 980Ti stays under throttle temp(which is does easily) then the final temp doesn't matter.





newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but a big part of the noise on the Fury X is the pump whine.  Adjusting the fan curve isn't going to fix that.  Especially not at idle when the 980Ti is dead silent and the Fury X is just sitting there whining away.


 Well first of all here is the charts...









The R9 Fury X is 4 DB higher at idle for 10db lower at load than that of a GTX 980ti.  So what's the complaint here because that is within the realm of a whole bunch of different cards at idle.  That is also a hardly noticeable level especially when you factor in these are in cases.  On top of that load is where your going to hear your cards more than anything and its quiet there so what does that matter at this point?  If we consider the GTX 980ti to be quiet at load than the Fury X is a lot quieter on its reference cooler which was as I recall a major complaint from everyone about the 290X...So why are reference coolers now considered a moot point?

Yes I will say AIO's are not the most practical thing on the market, but it works and works well keeping this card calm and quiet which to me was the point of improving upon the stock coolers.


----------



## Pill Monster (Jun 26, 2015)

newconroer said:


> I have never had a mutli GPU setup with the a-typical problems that people complain about, whether ATi, AMD or Nvidia.
> And bad drivers/profiles affect all cards regardless of the setup.
> 
> It's 2015. Between knowledge of frame latency, frame pacing and the near 98% scaling that cards can achieve, there's no reason to be afraid of multi-gpu arrangements.
> We should be encouraging awareness of the effectiveness of Crossfire and SLI. It is a cost conscious approach to giving people the performance they deserve - instead of forking out ridiculous money for a product that's inferior.


That's all lovely but have u ever looked at  AMD crossfire support . You have 290x CFX now, what did u have before. They never have 0Day support, would u like to see a list of release note known issues listing games without CFX support...? 

Man just look at Batman....AMD usual fix....disable Crossfire. Same "fix" as always. They sound like broken record.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Well first of all here is the charts...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is the problem with your argument, I'll quote myself:



newtekie1 said:


> At load it is basically the same as a 980Ti *with an aftermarket cooler*, but at idle it is way way way louder. In fact, at idle it is literally infinitely louder.



The 980Ti in the charts you posted are the reference cooler, which is loud.  This is why I specifically said "with and aftermarket cooler".

Lets take a look at what a decent aftermarket cooler can do on the 980Ti:








You see that 0db at idle?  Are we ever going to see that with a Fury X?  No, even if you turn the fan completely off the pump whine will still always be there.  And I don't even think you could keep the thing cool at idle with the fan completely off.  Of course I'm sure some people are thinking "but what about aftermarket versions of the Fury X", there won't be any.  AMD is doing the same thing nVidia is doing with the Titan, they are not allowing card makers to produce anything other than the reference design.  So we're stuck with with the reference design and its horrible pump whine.  Hopefully AMD might fix this with the next batch, but picking CoolerMaster as the OEM for the AIO was a bad choice.  They should have stuck with Asetek.


----------



## Pill Monster (Jun 26, 2015)

Re: my last post I'm not sure if was Batman, maybe another new one can't remember the name...prob not important tho.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jun 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but a big part of the noise on the Fury X is the pump whine.  Adjusting the fan curve isn't going to fix that.  Especially not at idle when the 980Ti is dead silent and the Fury X is just sitting there whining away.


If we are to believe trustworthy AMD, they are working with Cooler Master to reduce pump noise meaning that only review samples will have audible pump noise.
If there is any truth to that, I have a gut feeling it doesn't mean new and better pump, rather lowering an impeller rotational speed which would make it less noisy, hotter and more power hungry.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 26, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Here is the problem with your argument, I'll quote myself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well with any aftermarket cooler the same could be said...However for starters Asus did a 0gb R9 390X cooler so its still possible (The idle power usage is the same across the board so its the same possibility as with the GTX 980ti) in the long run (At least maybe on the regular Fury, though I had not heard they were completely denying the Fury X from having other coolers as well).  To top that off 30db area is considered to be whisper quiet, so I doubt either of these cards are noticeable enough at idle in a case to be a real bother.  Plus idle is only when your browsing the web or doing something of low intensity, load is where the noise is going to be since your gaming in which the cooler is still quieter than the EVGA card...

Point is, the area where these cards sit at idle is already low enough to not bother anyone in a standard computer environment.  0db is really nice at idle and will be possible as well on a Fury card later on but the cards are already so quiet at idle in this day and age its pretty irrelevant.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 26, 2015)

My card is out for delivery I will let you know if the pump is loud. I am also using a swifttech h220x which has very quite pump so I will have something to compare too.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2015)

Frick said:


> This is an insulting and sarcastic tangent, but since you clearly have schooled us all on technology on this forum, I'm excited to find out what marvelous things you can teach Steevo about mechanics. (seriously though you are, as the lil' hoff demonstrates, probably talking about different things, and it is always stupid to bring cars into a discussion about computers it just _never _works @Steevo )




Its true, it was a terrible analogy, but its what popped into my tiny brain at the time.

My point was and is scaling is not perfectly linear, sometimes the deviation is only a few percent, sometimes its vastly off target due to overhead.

In the world of engineering a few samples with minor changes will be tested and the design with the best performance is used, then the next few changes to that design are tested again for performance and slow tried and true refinements are made. If AMD took this same approach they would not have made such mistakes as Bulldozer, Tonga, and the crap cooler on Hawaii. It seems they want everything to work "just because", and that is a poor way to make business decisions.



Pill Monster said:


> Lol... Man oh man there are so many holes here I don't know where to start....
> It's like Swiss cheese....
> 
> The 295X was a success?  AMD has always supported modding?   drivers can turn a 7000 into a 7500?  links please.  And Omega drivers had nothing to  AMD btw, they certainly were not sanctioned by them.    Where do u come up with this stuff?   7990 was crap and failed also so there's another.    The 285 never succeeded Tahiti it was a side Project as Rejzor told u.
> ...






Hey man, I love you too, you seem to be infatuated with me but lets take it to the next level. My safe word is "Blueberry Pancakes".






RejZoR said:


> For the love of all that's still holy on this planet, R9-285 (Tonga) was *NOT* a replacement for *ANYTHING*.




"The Radeon R9 285, by virtue of its naming, is designed to replace the Radeon R9 280 from AMD's product stack (which has been declared end-of-life)."

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_285_Dual-X_OC/





Tatty_One said:


> The R9 380 sports the Tonga "Pro" core as I understand it.




Same core as the 285X 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r9-380-strix-review,2.html

Same performance but with a minor clock speed bump for this card in the review, same thing as the 285X showed, on shader heavy games it beats the 280X by a small margin, on every other game the 280X beats it, with roughly the same power consumption, but less overclocking ability.


----------



## Imran Mikayle the runner (Jun 26, 2015)

If you don't own one, You wouldn't know...same thing with nvidia geforce gtx 980 ti...I trust the reviews, but I'm planning to buy one..who knows


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 26, 2015)

The Fury X looks plenty capable, I'm just concerned about mounting the cooler. It's probably a non-issue in my case. I don't know, I still haven't made up my mind.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 26, 2015)

Steevo said:


> I made it to two Yugos in a vacuum.
> 
> Serious question, is that really what you thought when I said two Yugos will not go faster than one?
> Put them in a Vacuum......



Serious answer, read the rest of it.  I can't tell if you're trolling, or just too lazy to read the rest of it.  Your response indicates one of the two, and I can't decide which.


----------



## kiddagoat (Jun 26, 2015)

I love hearing all this back and forth from people that would never buy a GPU in this price range to begin with...... this arguing and fanboyism is pretty petty.....  you like what you like and keep it at that.  Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean you should flame them for it....  very few civil debates and discussions lately....

Also I see a lot of these keyboard engineers...... Most of you probably don't know how to read a spec sheet or really know what goes into making such products..... I mean you see a block diagram and some slides and soon all are experts.....

Both cards are engineering feats given that 28nm was not supposed to last this long... Kuddos to both sides for making the most with what they have.  

I owned a 980Ti (reference) for a few weeks and now I have my Fury X, I would be pleased with both.  I just am drawn more the to Fury X for aesthetics and noise.  The card is audible... no whine, no noise, no anything.  It is silent.   I could hear the 980Ti's fan rev up from time to time but nothing crazy and that was with my headphones on.  Even with them off you could tell the fan was on but nothing off putting.

Both cards are good and both are more than capable of playing whatever AAA titles are coming out this  year and the years to come.... unless you really are looking for that 4K monitor but until they are 120hz/144hz, I will pass... I am spoiled by the high refresh rates I have now...


----------



## BiggieShady (Jun 26, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I can't tell if you're trolling, or just too lazy to read the rest of it.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 26, 2015)

@kiddagoat ..completely off topic but possibly more interesting, is your avatar a Hubble pic or Chandra?


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

Oh my god, people still going on how R9-285 was released to replace R9-280X... No, no no no. No. NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Then why wasn't there any other silicon to replace R9-280, R9-270 and all the lower models? Why it never replaced the R9-290?

I mean c'mon people, am I the only one who has seen test cards with new tech being released during the time when old ones are very much actual and being sold? It really isn't the first time this happened...


----------



## kiddagoat (Jun 26, 2015)

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK ...... I do not remember actually.... It has been my picture for awhile....


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 26, 2015)

kiddagoat said:


> I love hearing all this back and forth from people that would never buy a GPU in this price range to begin with...... this arguing and fanboyism is pretty petty.....  you like what you like and keep it at that.  Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean you should flame them for it....  very few civil debates and discussions lately....
> 
> Also I see a lot of these keyboard engineers...... Most of you probably don't know how to read a spec sheet or really know what goes into making such products..... I mean you see a block diagram and some slides and soon all are experts.....
> 
> ...


 
Very well said!

Unfortunately it won't end the debate due to the title "What would you choose", which is completely subjective.  I'm pretty sure the debate will continue from both sides.


----------



## HD64G (Jun 26, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, in 1080P in over half the benchmarks didn't the 980Ti and sometimes even the 980 beat it?  So that's not a "destroyed everything."  At least that's what I remember from W1zzard's benchmarks.


Destroyed everything=games thrown to it


----------



## SonicZap (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Oh my god, people still going on how R9-285 was released to replace R9-280X... No, no no no. No. NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Then why wasn't there any other silicon to replace R9-280, R9-270 and all the lower models? Why it never replaced the R9-290?


Tonga replaced everything Tahiti, that includes both R9 280X and R9 280. Pitcairn (R9 270) is still competitive and so replacing it hasn't been worth it. As for Hawaii, Tonga's not powerful enough and AMD probably didn't want to spend their limited R&D funds on designing a replacement when Hawaii can still compete with GTX 970/980 in raw performance.

I think it's fairly clear if you look at AMD's 300 series lineup. Pitcairn (R7 265) is still there as R7 370, Hawaii is still there as R9 390(X), but there's no Tahiti in R9 380 because at that spot they now have Tonga, which is cheaper to produce and performs _almost_ as well with fewer resources.

I personally think that Tonga (R9 285) was both a technology experiment (it did contain actual improvements, at least the compression magic) _and_ a replacement for Tahiti (R9 280(X)).


----------



## newconroer (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> It is 2015, but 99,99% of games are still DX11, meaning you'll have all the bullshit. Things will only change with DX12...


I really do not understand what that means, as a response to my comment.. or was it actually a response?



Pill Monster said:


> That's all lovely but have u ever looked at  AMD crossfire support . You have 290x CFX now, what did u have before. They never have 0Day support, would u like to see a list of release note known issues listing games without CFX support...?
> 
> Man just look at Batman....AMD usual fix....disable Crossfire. Same "fix" as always. They sound like broken record.



From the last ten years, I've had the following in two way setup : GTS 640, GTX 295, Radeon 4870, 4870x2, 6950s, 6970s, and even GTX 670 with hybrid SLI GTX 680.

No cards have day 0 support  - at least not when you have to wait six months for a drive improvement (or accumulated improvement) to give you the performance it should have when it comes out. As I said before, this waiting on drivers is a sham and something that has to change about GPUs.

This isn't a multi GPU specific issue and certainly not limited to any brand.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 26, 2015)

LOL taped out a type-o on the box


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 26, 2015)

The 980 Ti is the better card, let's stop beating up on AMD and their partners and move on.


----------



## WelshJester (Jun 27, 2015)

I ended up ordering a 980Ti, AMD seem to be marketing this card to 4K where it performs best, but imo performance isn't there to justify it and won't be for quite some time with single GPU setups. At that kind of resolution users will need to upgrade far more often to keep up with newer games.

Performance of the Fury seems quite decent at 1440p, still not up to 980Ti standard though, and falls behind even more @ 1080p.. And with prices as they are now it isn't much more expensive to get a good 980Ti over a Fury x.

I'm also not interested in dual cards or multiple GPU's until micro stuttering doesn't exist anymore, so until that happens i will always go for the best for the money single GPU.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 27, 2015)

I think the reason for Fury to suck at lower resolutions is the lack of ROP units. Can't explain it any other way. They did work on the bandwidth heavily, but they left ROP count the same where GTX 980Ti increased the ROP count significantly. Seeing how GTX 980Ti performs a lot better than GTX970/GTX980 in lower res, that can be the only explanation imo.

I still like Fury, but it really doesn't make all that much sense for my situation. I too would benefit more from getting a GTX 980 or GTX 980Ti. Hell, R9-390X seems like a better option even. That's why I'm wondering where will vanilla Fury fall in. That's really the last thing I'm waiting for. Hearing how the R9 Nano will be focused on efficiency over performance doesn't give me allt hat much hope for performance over my current card...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 27, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Well with any aftermarket cooler the same could be said...However for starters Asus did a 0gb R9 390X cooler so its still possible (The idle power usage is the same across the board so its the same possibility as with the GTX 980ti) in the long run (At least maybe on the regular Fury, though I had not heard they were completely denying the Fury X from having other coolers as well).



We aren't talking about the 390X, the Fury X will not have aftermarket coolers, AMD has already said reference designs only.



GhostRyder said:


> To top that off 30db area is considered to be whisper quiet, so I doubt either of these cards are noticeable enough at idle in a case to be a real bother. Plus idle is only when your browsing the web or doing something of low intensity, load is where the noise is going to be since your gaming in which the cooler is still quieter than the EVGA card...



It definitely isn't whisper quiet, I've heard a Fury X in a case, I just built a system today with one.  The rest of the PC is silent at idle, the pump is loud as fuck.  Almost as bad as annoying coil whine. Except coil whine is usually covered up by fan noise under load.  At idle, the noise is very noticeable.  Not to mention when the card is under load you either have headphones on or the sound from the game coming from the speakers to cover up the sound of the computer.  At idle that won't be the case a lot of the time.  So I'd say quiet at idle is a lot more important than quiet at load.  And besides, if we are going by your website, a 3db change is "barely perceptible".  So, in other words, no difference.



GhostRyder said:


> Point is, the area where these cards sit at idle is already low enough to not bother anyone in a standard computer environment. 0db is really nice at idle and will be possible as well on a Fury card later on but the cards are already so quiet at idle in this day and age its pretty irrelevant.



Again, no it won't be possible on a Fury X card later on.  And it definitely is audible when idle.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 27, 2015)

Additional ~3dB means double the loudness (mileage may vary depending on the frequency of the noise). I wouldn't say "barely perceptable"...


----------



## v12dock (Jun 27, 2015)

The pump has some noise to it but I wouldn't say its "loud as fuck" overall its a quite card.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 27, 2015)

I think I know what I'll do now. Sleep with the devil. I've thrown my eyes on ASUS GTX 980 Strix OC and I think I'll just go and pick one next week. In my scenarios, it'll perform as good as the Fury X, cost less, since it's Strix it's also incredibly silent and well, it scored perfect 10.0 on TPU review.
I'm not a big fan of NVIDIA, but I have to admit it here, the most impressive is the performance/noise ratio. I know not many people really look at this, but I sleep in the same room as I have PC and noise is incredibly important. And with 30dB and load, it's very hard to beat. 

It'll cost me 655€ which is a bit, but I'm not that mad at changing cards every year and I think I'll have plenty of headroom + proper DX12.1 support. So I guess it can justify it.


----------



## Jaffakeik (Jun 27, 2015)

THis time I'm switching to Nvidia 980Ti, sorry to leave u behind AMD


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 27, 2015)

I've been on Radeon cards for several generations now, maybe it won't be bad to give NVIDIA a try again. Only reason why I'm not going with GTX 980Ti is because the reference ones are 720€ and with aftermarket coolers go for over 800€ and that's a bit ridiculous and they aren't even the ones I want. For 655€ I'll get an aftermarket OC-ed version of regular GTX 980 which I think is a decent value. Then we'll see with Pascal and Arctic Islands...


----------



## met (Jun 27, 2015)

picked this up 2 weeks ago and i am beyond happy!  haven't shut up about it!  so you buy your "high end" cards that play games not even CREATED for it yet and the games which are, can be played on MB video of ANY NEW PC.  i'll play old and current games with enjoyment and still not the least bit upset i paid $20; thats how planned obsolescence works!  you will find out, but it cost YOU$650 LMAO!  but the scary, THE REAL scary thing?  is probably 99% of you used AOL, and cant even diagnose or actually USE a computer for what it was intended!  in case you missed it, it wasn't made for playing games!  side effect of sitting there with a deck of cards versus putting the card game in to the system.   seriously solitaire is the first game on the PC (next to maybe minesweeper) because it wasnt made for "this".  it became this from FREAKSLIKEYOU!

The SAPPHIRE DUAL-X Radeon R9 280 is powered by the latest AMD GPU to take your gaming to the next level. Based on AMD 28nm GCN architecture and boasting support for DirectX 11.2, the Radeon R9 280 VPU gives you the power to drive today’s hottest games — and tomorrow’s, keeping you in the fight whatever the circumstances. With Ultra Resolution Gaming you can leave HD in the dust by gaming on displays much, much larger. *Whether using a 4k monitor or combining multiple HD monitors,* you’ll get an expansive experience that’s truly out of sight. A rich set of AMD innovative technologies is included, such as App Acceleration, AMD PowerTune, AMD ZeroCore, and AMD HD3D technology. With these technology advancements, you'll get more than one way to elevate your gaming experience.

_SAPPHIRE Dual-X Cooling Technology_ Dual-X is a highly efficient multi-heatpipe cooler with dual fans that provide quiet and very cool operation during normal operating conditions, and superb cooling performance even under extreme loads.

_Mantle_ There’s optimization, and then there’s Mantle. Games enabled with Mantle speak the language of GCN architecture to unlock revolutionary performance and image quality. It’s a game-changing innovation developed by AMD.

_AMD PowerTune Technology_ AMD PowerTune is a breakthrough technology that sets an entirely new direction for maximum performance at TDP. It allows the GPU to be designed with higher engine clock speeds which can be applied on the broad set of applications that have thermal headroom.

_AMD Stream Technology_ Accelerate the most demanding applications with AMD Stream technology and do more with your PC. AMD Stream Technology allows you to use the teraflops of compute power locked up in your graphics processer on tasks other than traditional graphics such as video encoding, at which the graphics processor is many, many times faster than using the CPU alone.

_AMD HD3D Technology_ Enjoy the most immersive experience possible with full support for High Definition Stereoscopic 3D, a technique that presents 2D images (movies, games, photos) in a format that creates the illusion of three-dimensional depth when using compatible 3D displays/glasses/software.

*SAPPHIRE DUAL-X 100373L Radeon R9 280 3GB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$150 after rebate!!  and just in case for you "rebate people" :*

*We are pleased to inform you that your rebate, with the Basic you selected has been processed and approved on 06/24/2015.*

*Your Amex® Reward Card will be mailed within 5-7 weeks. Please contact us if you have any additional questions.*

*SPEND YOUR MONEY THE ECONOMY NEEDS IT!! *


----------



## P4-630 (Jun 27, 2015)

met said:


> SPEND YOUR MONEY THE ECONOMY NEEDS IT!!



Are you from Greece?


----------



## purecain (Jun 27, 2015)

well I will get a month to play with the card, if I don't like it... back to the shop it goes... tbh im more likely to mod the cooling with a better fan at the very least... maybe even switch out the radiator for the one im using on my 290x...

I don't get coil whine as I use vsync when playing games....

if the performance of the card proves to be poor, well then i'll just buy another and another... the joy of not giving a damn and having plenty of cash on the hip.... makes life much more fun... 

although if thats the case, this will be the last time I support AMD. you have no idea how much I wanted a 980ti....

btw... if I had gone with a 980 ti it would of arrived this morning... 

also if you think the performance is bad then check how it performs in real time in 8 gpu intensive titles. theres nothing in it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 29, 2015)

met said:


> picked this up 2 weeks ago and i am beyond happy!  haven't shut up about it!  so you buy your "high end" cards that play games not even CREATED for it yet and the games which are, can be played on MB video of ANY NEW PC.  i'll play old and current games with enjoyment and still not the least bit upset i paid $20; thats how planned obsolescence works!  you will find out, but it cost YOU$650 LMAO!  but the scary, THE REAL scary thing?  is probably 99% of you used AOL, and cant even diagnose or actually USE a computer for what it was intended!  in case you missed it, it wasn't made for playing games!  side effect of sitting there with a deck of cards versus putting the card game in to the system.   seriously solitaire is the first game on the PC (next to maybe minesweeper) because it wasnt made for "this".  it became this from FREAKSLIKEYOU!
> 
> The SAPPHIRE DUAL-X Radeon R9 280 is powered by the latest AMD GPU to take your gaming to the next level. Based on AMD 28nm GCN architecture and boasting support for DirectX 11.2, the Radeon R9 280 VPU gives you the power to drive today’s hottest games — and tomorrow’s, keeping you in the fight whatever the circumstances. With Ultra Resolution Gaming you can leave HD in the dust by gaming on displays much, much larger. *Whether using a 4k monitor or combining multiple HD monitors,* you’ll get an expansive experience that’s truly out of sight. A rich set of AMD innovative technologies is included, such as App Acceleration, AMD PowerTune, AMD ZeroCore, and AMD HD3D technology. With these technology advancements, you'll get more than one way to elevate your gaming experience.
> 
> ...



Please, enlighten us with the rest of the online shop info. I love reading it... / sarcasm


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 30, 2015)

Didn't notice W1zzard already did a review on the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 gaming two weeks ago, but so far it looks like the best single GPU to go with. It almost doubles the FPS of one 970 in some games at 4K. Just averaging 15% better than a ref 980 Ti though makes it well worth the extra $40.

Gigabyte does it again. I can't believe it's only 11.6" long too. Should even fit in a lot of micro cases.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 1, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Very well said!
> 
> Unfortunately it won't end the debate due to the title "What would you choose", which is completely subjective.  I'm pretty sure the debate will continue from both sides.



well at last my dilemma ended ... i didn't choose it  i did won it ... altho i would prefer a Fury X the pricing in Switzerland killed it ... it range now from 730chf to ...  1730chf  (c'mon what do they smoke ... 1730 really??? )
so i have to go with a 980 for my 290 upgrade (due to a giveaway  sad it's not a Ti but still a good card ) see ... i am sided to none ... but i tend to support a bit more AMD for me the best is the Fury X (if the pricing would be different ... ) and the best contestant the 980Ti .... both are on a equal foot for me... i let the Titan X out of that ... it's not a card ... it's a trophy to put a "look i have money and i can show it" (imho and only imho   )


----------



## hapkiman (Jul 1, 2015)

Thought long and hard (no pun intended), and came to this decision:  GTX 980 Ti > Fury X.

Just pulled the trigger on a 980 Ti one day shipping, I'll get it tomorrow.  MSI Gaming GTX 980 Ti 6G.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jul 1, 2015)

purecain said:


> well I will get a month to play with the card, if I don't like it... back to the shop it goes... tbh im more likely to mod the cooling with a better fan at the very least... maybe even switch out the radiator for the one im using on my 290x...
> 
> I don't get coil whine as I use vsync when playing games....
> 
> ...



Gees that *390x* is very competitive! I wonder how a 290x would fair given its current price. Its got to be one of the best value GPU's out there. Its a pity it chews power like cows on a paddock and heats up like a rocket...


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 1, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Did not vote.
> 
> 
> I'd buy a second hand, non-coin farming 290, 290x, or an immensely discounted 7970 GHz.  I'd pocket the rest of the money, and invest it toward whichever company can offer better bang for the buck when Pascal goes head-to-head with Arctic Islands.  Once everything else was said and done, I'd have a decent card now, and actually be able to afford a card when the die shrink finally comes.




Invest it in stock?  Too risky, in which, you hypothetically lose the money, and are stuck with your 290x crossfire with terrible driver xfire support for another 4 years.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 1, 2015)

lynx29 said:


> Invest it in stock?  Too risky, in which, you hypothetically lose the money, and are stuck with your 290x crossfire with terrible driver xfire support for another 4 years.



?

I think this might be a linguistic gap.  In this instance what is meant is to hold the money now, and whenever the newer cards come out spend it then.  There is no plan to try and earn interest or earn dividends to pay for the card in the future.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 1, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> ?
> 
> I think this might be a linguistic gap.  In this instance what is meant is to hold the money now, and whenever the newer cards come out spend it then.  There is no plan to try and earn interest or earn dividends to pay for the card in the future.




Yes, this makes more sense.  Thanks lol


----------



## Warrgarbl (Jul 1, 2015)

The 970. In fact, I have bought an Asus GTX970 Strix just three weeks ago. I believe that the GTX970 represents the best price / performance ratio at the moment. I also game on 1.920x1.200, so it is easily sufficient. I'd also rather upgrade the card in 1.5 years or so than keep a much higher priced card for 3 years.

I also really value silence, and this is an area AMD really can't compete in, as much as I do love AMD. I really hope that they will eventually release something awesome again that allows them to put pressure on Nvidia and Intel, especially the former with its monopolist price gouging.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2015)

The memory thing is a huge stinker. Even if it doesn't affect things now, I don't like owning hardware that is known to have something weird going on. That's why I've opted for the GTX 980. One would think NVIDIA has done that intentionally just to sell more GTX 980. Who knows, but still, I prefer to have something that has no "maybe" in it.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 1, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> We aren't talking about the 390X, the Fury X will not have aftermarket coolers, AMD has already said reference designs only.
> 
> It definitely isn't whisper quiet, I've heard a Fury X in a case, I just built a system today with one.  The rest of the PC is silent at idle, the pump is loud as fuck.  Almost as bad as annoying coil whine. Except coil whine is usually covered up by fan noise under load.  At idle, the noise is very noticeable.  Not to mention when the card is under load you either have headphones on or the sound from the game coming from the speakers to cover up the sound of the computer.  At idle that won't be the case a lot of the time.  So I'd say quiet at idle is a lot more important than quiet at load.  And besides, if we are going by your website, a 3db change is "barely perceptible".  So, in other words, no difference.
> 
> Again, no it won't be possible on a Fury X card later on.  And it definitely is audible when idle.


 
Where have they said reference designs only because I looked at the slides and around the web and have not seen anything other than the usual at launch there will be only reference designs available (I'm dead serious, not being sarcastic point it out to me).  I was pointing out on the 390X since the power consumption is not much different, then its definitely possible for a 0db card/cooler to come out (If not on Fury X, vanilla Fury).

The meters from all sites point the card to being pretty quiet...They do not ignore the sounds the pump makes and report lower levels than what people are hearing.  Unless the pump you had was unbelievably loud for some reason they are reported at not being dead quiet like some of the special 0db cards have going but its still quiet especially when load is factored in which is below even most aftermarket coolers on high end cards out there.

I don't see it as anymore audible in a normal case than any graphics card out there.  Ill have a chance to experience one though as a friend at a LAN party received 2 of them today for his machine so ill take a listen in person for myself.


----------



## purecain (Jul 3, 2015)

ok so the radeon fury coil whine is from the pump which looks like a notoriously bad part(its supposed to be fixed on retail samples). im thinking I might just change my order in the morning to a titan x and pay the difference... what say ye?????????????????

but then I read this...
Ms. Premiere: After many months of consideration, I have decided that it is in the best interest of the consumer to know the truth behind the Maxwell architecture. When we were first asked to greatly increase the performance over Kepler at half the power draw, we thought someone upstairs had lost a few marbles. Kepler was already using an advanced form of color compression, transistor gating, variable frequency... we were pushing the limits of 28nm already.



After hundreds of virtual simulations with limited success were conducted, many of the engineers felt that a new approach was necessary. Taking a page from Televisions' book, we began experimenting with interlacing frames, where only half of the frame would be rendered and updated onscreen instead of a whole frame. The approach allowed us to effectively double the frame rates compared to Kepler. In order to properly assign workloads to the GPU, we also were forced to double the number of SM's and halve the number of cores per SM.



This approach saw benefits trickle down into other areas. Using this new approach, we were able to introduce a new form of anti-aliasing which we called Multi-Frame Anti-aliasing, or MFAA for short. In theory, we could obtain double the MSAA strength because only half a frame was being rendered at a time. 2x MSAA suddenly became 4x MFAA. In practice it was more like 2.5x-3.5x due to overhead, but the improvements somehow leaked over to the PR department and they ran with it. 



The end result was a new architecture that greatly improved the performance over Kepler, at half the power draw. This lead to many corners being cut in production, including weaker components and Ram partitioning. The original Titan at a thousand dollars was sold at a loss if you include the costs of R&D. The recent Titan X has a 200% markup with all expenses accounted for.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 3, 2015)

Warrgarbl said:


> I believe that the GTX970 represents the best price / performance ratio at the moment. I also game on 1.920x1.200, so it is easily sufficient.



I used to think so, until I started realizing it really isn't if anyone is running considerably higher res or planning to. In fact in extremely VRAM intense games, it only shows as outputting 3.5GB.










That means if you want to run very VRAM intense high graphics games like Shadow of Mordor on the highest settings, you'll be getting VRAM bottle necking and the resulting stutter. And that's just at 1080p.

So at 1080p or anything close to it, most games yeah, but going forward, were I to entertain the idea of a 4K display in the next couple years, or wanted to run all games max just at 1080p even, I'd def go with one of the aftermarket 980 Ti cards, esp the Giga G1. Because the word "value" can start leaving a nasty taste in your mouth once you experince the limitations.

Another way to look at value is what each single card can do in intense 4K gaming, and the Giga G1 almost doubles one 970 in some games at that res, yet you're only using one slot, and outputting the heat of just one card.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 3, 2015)

purecain said:


> ok so the radeon fury coil whine is from the pump which looks like a notoriously bad part(its supposed to be fixed on retail samples). im thinking I might just change my order in the morning to a titan x and pay the difference... what say ye?????????????????
> 
> but then I read this...
> Ms. Premiere: After many months of consideration, I have decided that it is in the best interest of the consumer to know the truth behind the Maxwell architecture. When we were first asked to greatly increase the performance over Kepler at half the power draw, we thought someone upstairs had lost a few marbles. Kepler was already using an advanced form of color compression, transistor gating, variable frequency... we were pushing the limits of 28nm already.
> ...



You can't seriously believe that...  Interlaced frames can actually be visually detected.  There is NO way that is going on.

What's been done instead is a cut to double precision to 1/32...  The lowest it's ever seen.  Fortunately, this is 100% irrelevant to gamers.  This is well established.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 3, 2015)

purecain said:


> ok so the radeon fury coil whine is from the pump which looks like a notoriously bad part(its supposed to be fixed on retail samples). im thinking I might just change my order in the morning to a titan x and pay the difference... what say ye?????????????????
> 
> but then I read this...
> Ms. Premiere: After many months of consideration, I have decided that it is in the best interest of the consumer to know the truth behind the Maxwell architecture. When we were first asked to greatly increase the performance over Kepler at half the power draw, we thought someone upstairs had lost a few marbles. Kepler was already using an advanced form of color compression, transistor gating, variable frequency... we were pushing the limits of 28nm already.
> ...



FUD. Plain and simple.  Pretty sure some of the usual suspects will link dubious articles from shadowy types.
Good thing is, you can read all the reviews, buy an AIB design card and know you'll be far from stock performance and production values.

The Maxwell arch dropped DP compute, that's the saving, as well as other refinements like Fiji has managed over Hawaii.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 3, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> FUD. Plain and simple.  Pretty sure some of the usual suspects will link dubious articles from shadowy types.
> Good thing is, you can read all the reviews, buy an AIB design card and know you'll be far from stock performance and production values.
> 
> The Maxwell arch dropped DP compute, that's the saving, as well as other refinements like Fiji has managed over Hawaii.



Actaully, it appears from my brief googling this may be a misinterpreted april fools post on another forum...  Either way, NOT true.


----------



## purecain (Jul 3, 2015)

still what say ye on the titan x instead... ahhg couldn't help myself and went for a Zotac GeForce Titan X 12288MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (ZT-90401-10P).

I managed to get it on special offer at 779.99...  cant wait to get the full Maxwell gpu... I wanted this card originally... and I know im not going to be disappointed in any way..


and it will be here on Monday... :0 now im ready for doom on the oculus


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 3, 2015)

purecain said:


> still what say ye on the titan x instead...


in a normal scenario i would say not worth it ... but where i live it's funny ... the Fury X range from 800chf~ to 1034chf (with one etailer that does it at 1700ish ... pfahaha so dumb) so it's in line with the price of the 980Ti and Titan X for me, if a 980 was not already enough (and cheaper ... the one i won in the giveaway is 606chf, which is still roughly the MSRP of a 980Ti or a Fury X)

so if i had the money to upgrade around 1000chf i would obviously go Titan X even if its not a card but a trophy since even a 390X and 980 are enough these days, now if the MSRP was respected in Switzerland i would still go Fury X over 980Ti.

the price of the previous Titan line was almost justified due to DP compute performance but the X ... is gimped on that side, so in the end it's just a overpriced gaming card using the name of a previous gen who was a "affordable workstation class card" so now beside the RAM it has nearly nothing to value over a 980Ti for the price asked (heck even a good clocked 980 can be top notch)

oh and coils whine from a pump? well noisy pump in the 1st batch and nope it wasn't corrected in the retail, read the news here http://www.techpowerup.com/213993/amd-revises-pump-block-design-for-radeon-r9-fury-x.html

if it was me i would have already slapped a EK full cover block on the fury i would have, mainly because i already have a GPU loop (hence the "why i am so happy that the one i won was a Poseidon")


----------



## husseinHr (Jul 3, 2015)

This: EVGA 980 Ti Superclocked ACX 2.0+. Well worth it!


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 3, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Actaully, it appears from my brief googling this may be a misinterpreted april fools post on another forum... Either way, NOT true.



Its Always April fools day in the world of PR


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 3, 2015)

I think things will drastically change when R9 Fury X2 hits the streets. That one will have 128 ROP's as well as double of everything else. Pack that next to HBM and things will change. Currently I think GPU is gimping the HBM memory...


----------



## purecain (Jul 3, 2015)

that's why I decided to go with Maxwell. I think NVidia have the better architecture, plus ive never used PhysX.

so im looking forward to seeing what extra particle effects i'll have enabled in the witcher and the new Batman title...

definatly happy with my decision... @hussainhr- too late buddy, I jumped on a titan x reference... i'll watercool it down the road... but thanks for the suggestion much appreciated...


----------



## husseinHr (Jul 3, 2015)

purecain said:


> that's why I decided to go with Maxwell. I think NVidia have the better architecture, plus ive never used PhysX.
> 
> so im looking forward to seeing what extra particle effects i'll have enabled in the witcher and the new Batman title...
> 
> definatly happy with my decision... @hussainhr- too late buddy, I jumped on a titan x reference... i'll watercool it down the road... but thanks for the suggestion much appreciated...


Ah, right. Well, enjoy the card! It's a monster!


----------

