GAR4GB of ram is a failure IMO, if you plan to keep this card for 3+ years, I wouldnt buy it, It might be good for todays games at 1440P and most at 4K, but most games even at 1080P can use all 4GB of memory, GTA 5 is one example, I have the titan X and in some cases Ive seen 4.5gb of ram being used with msaa on at 1080P.

Yeah, but GTA5 doesn't use tiled-resources. With GL mega-textures and D3D tiled-resources, memory size growth in video cards will take a hit (or at least games will consume lesser video memory). Tiled-resources will be as heavily proliferated/implemented a feature of DX12, as tessellation was, with DX11.

Memory bandwidth, more than memory size, will hold the key to this generation. AMD is getting a headstart over NVIDIA. Your 980 Ti may look good with existing DX11 games, but come DX12, and its memory implementation will begin to choke.

The Fury X is going to make some amazing mini-ITX builds.

RejZoRBut AiO will be much much quieter regardless of conditions. Also, OC headroom should be a lot bigger on AiO...

AIO isn't "much much" quiter at all. In fact, in most cases it is louder than air coolers becuase of pump noice and higher fan RPM due to the lack of enough cooling surface. The asus STRIX and MSI TF are prime examples from w1z's reviews. Close to mere silence on hefty GPUs. Coolers like the D15 are the ultimate example, with noice to performance ratio that utterly demolishes the best of AIOs

I have an Antec H2O 920 on my CPU and it's basically whisper quiet. The pump is inaudible and I've replaced shitty fans with Noiseblocker Multi-Frame fans that run at fixed speed. Depending on the price, I might do the same for GPU. The only thing that really makes any noise is graphic card... But I think I'll be going with WindForce 3X Fury...

2big2failThe Fury X is going to make some amazing mini-ITX builds.

Agreed!

ATi Rage Fury Maxx was (if we exclude 3dfx VSA100) one of the rare high end multiprocessor graphic cards. ATi also invented AFR rendering mode for it. The reason why it wasn't a success is because it was ahead of its time like most multi GPU units back then and even today...

Not putting in for another upgrade until the new 16nm cards come out. THEN there will be some interesting competition between both Nvidia and AMD. They just seem uninteresting with what's going on right now. It all depends on how much of a performance bump people can get if they consider a jump from let's say R9 290/GTX 970.

BTW, from the charts that I've seen as of late, isn't the R9 390 and R9 390X just rebrands of the 290 and 290X?

From the earlier rumors there was going to (eventually) be an 8GB version of the Fiji XT. Any news on that?

nickbaldwin86No DVI ports!!! WOOT

I will take two! :)

if these can be single slot that would be amazing (with water block course)

The majority of connections for monitors over 96hz are DVI-D and Display port. However the latter doesn't always play nice at high frequencies, so DVI-D is a stable go to.
And seeing as a lot of 'gamers' are moving to high hz display panels, I find this a bad move on their part.

64KThe Gigabyte 980 Ti Gaming is a great card, no doubt about that, but we don't know for certain yet what the Fury X performance is or the price.

I was referring to the reference 980 ti :)

HisDivineOrderAMD? Do you really want to dredge up a naming scheme from ATI Rage cards way back when? Do you really think those of us who lived during those ancient times are going to go, "Wow, that name gives me warm and fuzzy feelings!"

Because it doesn't. It reminds me of Rage Fury Pro and Rage Fury MAXX. The latter card barely worked. Imagine if nVidia resurrected the FX5800 series as the FX8500. Or Intel brought back the Pentium IV and RDRAM because people loved it so much.

No, AMD. Stop being silly.

Speak for yourself. This card is an auto buy for me because of that same reason. Buying two right when it releases.

Perform as well as a Titan X and cheaper? No complaints here.

the54thvoidI'd prefer air cooled, AiO is a waste for my needs. Either way it's be custom water. Just need EKWB to start PR spamming for both 980ti and Fury!

Titan X block works on 980 TI :D

EK-FC Titan X is a high performance full-cover water block for nVidia reference (NVA-PG600) design GeForce GTX Titan X and GTX 980 Ti series graphics cards.

btarunrYeah, but GTA5 doesn't use tiled-resources. With GL mega-textures and D3D tiled-resources, memory size growth in video cards will take a hit (or at least games will consume lesser video memory). Tiled-resources will be as heavily proliferated/implemented a feature of DX12, as tessellation was, with DX11.

Memory bandwidth, more than memory size, will hold the key to this generation. AMD is getting a headstart over NVIDIA. Your 980 Ti may look good with existing DX11 games, but come DX12, and its memory implementation will begin to choke.

Isn't that a moot point when you buy a card for today's games and games soon coming out. While some games will have those features others will not which kind of sucks when you buy a flagship card and it just won't work like a flagship card for some games. I mean either way we'll see in the reviews how the card hold up especially at the higher resolutions.

Considering MASSIVE difference in badnwidth, I don't think Fury X will be "just" on par with Titan X...

Patiently waiting for the 16th when the hype around this card will finally dissipate in silence.

RejZoRConsidering MASSIVE difference in badnwidth, I don't think Fury X will be "just" on par with Titan X...

Lets see...
R9 290X - 320GB/s
GTX 980 - 224GB/s
42% high VRAM bandwitdh capacity for R9 290X, while being beaten by 38% on 1440P (according to TPU).

AMD R9 Fury X - 512GB/s
GTX 980 Ti - 337GB/s
51% additional bandwitdh capacity for Fury X.

You do the math. Numbers numbers, wish they held water.

This card and the asus MG279Q will be the perfect combination.. looking forward to both of them.

Dj-ElectriCLets see...
R9 290X - 320GB/s
GTX 980 - 224GB/s
42% high VRAM bandwitdh capacity for R9 290X, while being beaten by 38% on 1440P (according to TPU).

AMD R9 Fury X - 512GB/s
GTX 980 Ti - 337GB/s
51% additional bandwitdh capacity for Fury X.

You do the math. Numbers numbers, wish they held water.

But, for the aforementioned reason where DX12 will be more memory bandwidth aware the AMD card should definitely pull ahead once those games start to hit the market.

semanticsIsn't that a moot point when you buy a card for today's games and games soon coming out. While some games will have those features others will not which kind of sucks when you buy a flagship card and it just won't work like a flagship card for some games. I mean either way we'll see in the reviews how the card hold up especially at the higher resolutions.

His was a respond to a comment about this card with its 4gb holding up in 3 years.
And from their you go back to the present... okej then.
At the present 4gb is more then enough for 99% of the games out now and in the foreseeable future.
After that DX12 becomes the norm and 4gb will not be as important anymore as bandwidth so it will still not pose a problem later.

thats the point here.

Dj-ElectriCLets see...
R9 290X - 320GB/s
GTX 980 - 224GB/s
42% high VRAM bandwitdh capacity for R9 290X, while being beaten by 38% on 1440P (according to TPU).

AMD R9 Fury X - 512GB/s
GTX 980 Ti - 337GB/s
51% additional bandwitdh capacity for Fury X.

You do the math. Numbers numbers, wish they held water.

Isn't fury a new chip and the 390's 290's?

FrickIsn't fury a new chip and the 390's 290's?

For the most part. But where do you see him referencing the 390?

Dj-ElectriCLets see...
R9 290X - 320GB/s
GTX 980 - 224GB/s
42% high VRAM bandwitdh capacity for R9 290X, while being beaten by 38% on 1440P (according to TPU).

AMD R9 Fury X - 512GB/s
GTX 980 Ti - 337GB/s
51% additional bandwitdh capacity for Fury X.

You do the math. Numbers numbers, wish they held water.

Erm, you do realize Fury X is not a 290X right? 2816 shaders vs 4096, not to mention more of everything else including the fact it has BETTER shaders to begin with.

RejZoRThis is Ferrari of graphic cards. You don't give a shit how much resources it consumes in the process for as long as it's fast. And makes no noise. In this case XD

If highest end is R9 Fury X, then I assume vanilla Fury will be R9 Fury (without the X).

Its ferrari of cards that probably cost as much as a ferrari, 980ti is nissan GTR. just as fast a and a lot cheaper. Ferrari's can be very loud to.

the54thvoidLooking back, the 290x had 64 ROP's and 780ti had 48. This has 128 to the 96 on 980ti. So up by 100% versus 50% on Maxwell. Surely that should help it pull ahead?
Edit: I have been corrected. They're both 100%. Hey I typed it working out, I'm focussing on reps, not ROP's.

Well If specs ment anything anymore it would. But day where # of cores and rops, memory bandwidth, died many years ago.

happitaNot putting in for another upgrade until the new 16nm cards come out. THEN there will be some interesting competition between both Nvidia and AMD. They just seem uninteresting with what's going on right now. It all depends on how much of a performance bump people can get if they consider a jump from let's say R9 290/GTX 970.BTW, from the charts that I've seen as of late, isn't the R9 390 and R9 390X just rebrands of the 290 and 290X?

Nvidia can deal with a small loss or even tieing til 16nm is ready. 390(x) will be based off hawaii chip, but looking like they will be upgraded with gcn 1.2 which is what r9 285 used.

2big2failFrom the earlier rumors there was going to (eventually) be an 8GB version of the Fiji XT. Any news on that?

Yea but won't be i heard 2-3 months after but don't think see them til like nov/dec probably area maybe oct. I expect a lot of people will be in for some sticker shock when they come out.

RejZoRConsidering MASSIVE difference in badnwidth, I don't think Fury X will be "just" on par with Titan X...

Dj-ElectriCLets see...
R9 290X - 320GB/s
GTX 980 - 224GB/s
42% high VRAM bandwitdh capacity for R9 290X, while being beaten by 38% on 1440P (according to TPU).

AMD R9 Fury X - 512GB/s
GTX 980 Ti - 337GB/s
51% additional bandwitdh capacity for Fury X.

You do the math. Numbers numbers, wish they held water.

RejZoRErm, you do realize Fury X is not a 290X right? 2816 shaders vs 4096, not to mention more of everything else including the fact it has BETTER shaders to begin with.

Yea memory bandwidth has been really only reason AMD gpu's remain in a competitive spot. Wonder what would happened if 980 had 384 bit or even 512bit from day one. what the performance diff would be?

We do realize all that, but we also see how history has proven everything. Just cause AMD has had more bandwidth hasn't ment it hasn't been a ton faster.

64KI'm expecting great performance from Fury. There will no doubt be people waiting in line to slam it for electricity used but for enthusiasts the extra 50 cents a month on the power bill are irrelevant unless you run it 24/7 at full load or you pay a ridiculously high rate per kWh.

so do i... thanks for pointing out the extra cost over a month is .... ridiculous at best.