The Fiji chips didn't sell well because they were overpriced for what they were. They still are. Mainland Europe the Fury X sold for 850EUR ($882), months later it started sitting at 650-700EUR($674-726), same with the Fury Nano and the cut Fury. HBM didn't help them much, and I call the Fiji lineup an experimental joke from AMD at best.
Even today they still hold price in Europe from 430-700 EUR which is insane.

FMinusThe Fiji chips didn't sell well because they were overpriced for what they were. They still are. Mainland Europe the Fury X sold for 850EUR ($882), months later it started sitting at 650-700EUR($674-726), same with the Fury Nano and the cut Fury. HBM didn't help them much, and I call the Fiji lineup an experimental joke from AMD at best.
Even today they still hold price in Europe from 430-700 EUR which is insane.

I bought my Fury X as soon as it was in stock for 698€. So as far as Germany is considered mainland europe this is not quite true.

bugLet's try to use our brains here a bit, ok?

The "DX12/Vulkan is irrelevant, since GPUs will be obsolete" statement is true, because that's the situation with most titles available now

Yeah, let's use our brains here a bit, shall we...

bugIF you happen to play Doom and only Doom, than yes, the 480 is probably the card to get. If you play Doom and something else, things change.

No, they don't change. 4 month after release, 1060 lead in DX11 games shrunk to ignorable, while 480's DX12 lead gap widened.

bugOther reasons to buy the 480 could be "it's cheaper than 1060"

It isn't cheaper.
Another reason is "I don't want to be bent over when buying monitor with adaptive sync".

Oh, and the main point, which you seem to have COMPLETELY MISSED: AMD GPUs age gracefully, nVidia's GPUs end their lives in shame, with 960 beating 780Ti.

renz496RX480 for example is rated at 5.1tflops while GTX1060 was rated at 3.85tflops. but

But GPUs are not only about flops and doesn't cover things, such as geometry processing, for instance.

AMD is undeniably gaining more than NV with DX12.

The cost of the 1060 is still 10% more than the 480 in some parts; in others, they have the same.
Why? Because they have about the same performance now. (DX11/12 +- titles)
So those owners who initially bought a 1060 at a surplus price have done a worse deal than the 480 buyers.

Making the early 480 adaptors "right" and the 1060 ones "wrong"
(basically, the card which was the cheapest for you at the moment was the correct card)

But this discrepancy will only increase in time.

It´s rather plain to see that the flops are way higher. In the end, that combined with DX12 will cause 480 owners to have a longer, better experience with their card.

Even the rushed dump of the 1060 by NV, which was clearly specced higher than they originally intended, can´t hide the strenght of the 480 in the end.

the54thvoidFuryX had quite a limited run to be fair. Very few if any still exist in UK retailer stocks. Has been that way for months and months. (I was looking to grab one cheap). HBM was an experiment on that front.

I'm not surprised TBH.

Fiji was 28nm, so was Grenada. Grenada was pretty much being phased out in retail supply when Polaris was gonna hit retail. So I reckon Fiji had also stopped being produced. It was no way as popular as Hawaii/Grenada, so unlikely to keep selling due to demand and pricing. I would assume margins must have also been smaller compared with Hawaii/Grenada, so doubt that whole supply channel had room to keep making and lowering the price to make it sell.

Past 5 months off and on Fury has been under £300 at etailers, I just reckon even if the relative performance has been better on Fiji buyers just go RX 480 or GTX 1060.

the54thvoidOne thing people are quite hypocritical or ignorant of is the hardware inside 'comparable' cards. 480 should easily beat 1060, so it's no doubt it's getting better. Likewise, Fiji had 4096 shader cores and decent ACE units. That's why it also required water cooling from start.
In terms of hardware power AMD are still not using their hardware well at all. They should be a lot better than Nvidia.

Hmm I don't think AMD went AIO on Fury X just due the spec of GPU, I think it was to give a better quieter product.

290X TDP 290W - reference design had blower, which was noisy, etc.
390X TDP 275W - reference design had blower, which was noisy, etc.
Fury X TDP 275W - reference design AIO unit, not noisy, etc.

I'll be honest I got a Fury/X in March 16 just to try, I ended up keeping it :) . I had a Vapor-X 290X at the time, as I could sell that for no loss and swap to Fury X which didn't need the cost of custom water cooling it was a no brainer to keep it. Due to the promo price/cashback site I used the Fury X was costing me ~£250 back in March 16 :D .

They Fury Tri-X and Fury X were way quieter and cooler running cards than any of the Hawaii cards I have owned. I have owned 3x 290 Tri-X, 1x Vapor-X 290X and 1x Asus DCUII 290X. The Fury Tri-X I even unlocked to 3840SP which when benched against the genuine Fury X was on par for performance in some things I tested.

I do agree for the SP count Fiji really should perform so much better, I do not know much about GPU architecture, small discussion I had with The Stilt it boiled down to ROPs.

qubitI tested it and got blue screens all over. Glorious.

Even when the bsods stopped, the game still didn't work (crashed). Not sure if the game was faulty, dodgy NVIDIA drivers or a Windows fault. Never mind, I haven't bought the game and the trial period has expired, so the point is moot. It's very likely to work the next time I try it in several months time.

It worked in DX11, but even there it sometimes crashed.

Why don't you just play in DX11? I mean it's not news that nVidia isn;t very good in next gen API.
I would only play games in DX12 using nVidia if it's a GameWorks or nVidia paid games like Tomb Raider and shit, that's the only time nVidia crap works well on dx12.

the54thvoidFuryX had quite a limited run to be fair. Very few if any still exist in UK retailer stocks. Has been that way for months and months. (I was looking to grab one cheap). HBM was an experiment on that front.

One thing people are quite hypocritical or ignorant of is the hardware inside 'comparable' cards. 480 should easily beat 1060, so it's no doubt it's getting better. Likewise, Fiji had 4096 shader cores and decent ACE units. That's why it also required water cooling from start.
In terms of hardware power AMD are still not using their hardware well at all. They should be a lot better than Nvidia.

Don't ignore the fact that the 1060 and 50% more ROP's than the 480, and that Nvidia also uses more transistors per SP than AMD (And almost always has). AMD's cards are built to do everything and last a long time, and Nvidia builds their cards for VERY specific tasks (And as such hit terrible bottlenecks often).

For sure though AMD has failed to optimize as well as they could in the past on easier to run games, and they just waited for games to get harder to run for full SP saturation (Instead of programing so they can run lighter loads more efficiently). However I would say AMD is improving on this front quite a lot lately. Once again I point out that AMD doesn't want to release Enthusiast cards until they fully nip that driver optimization problem in the butt.

gupstergI'm not surprised TBH.

Fiji was 28nm, so was Grenada. Grenada was pretty much being phased out in retail supply when Polaris was gonna hit retail. So I reckon Fiji had also stopped being produced. It was no way as popular as Hawaii/Grenada, so unlikely to keep selling due to demand and pricing. I would assume margins must have also been smaller compared with Hawaii/Grenada, so doubt that whole supply channel had room to keep making and lowering the price to make it sell.

Past 5 months off and on Fury has been under £300 at etailers, I just reckon even if the relative performance has been better on Fiji buyers just go RX 480 or GTX 1060.



Hmm I don't think AMD went AIO on Fury X just due the spec of GPU, I think it was to give a better quieter product.

290X TDP 290W - reference design had blower, which was noisy, etc.
390X TDP 275W - reference design had blower, which was noisy, etc.
Fury X TDP 275W - reference design AIO unit, not noisy, etc.

I'll be honest I got a Fury/X in March 16 just to try, I ended up keeping it :) . I had a Vapor-X 290X at the time, as I could sell that for no loss and swap to Fury X which didn't need the cost of custom water cooling it was a no brainer to keep it. Due to the promo price/cashback site I used the Fury X was costing me ~£250 back in March 16 :D .

They Fury Tri-X and Fury X were way quieter and cooler running cards than any of the Hawaii cards I have owned. I have owned 3x 290 Tri-X, 1x Vapor-X 290X and 1x Asus DCUII 290X. The Fury Tri-X I even unlocked to 3840SP which when benched against the genuine Fury X was on par for performance in some things I tested.

I do agree for the SP count Fiji really should perform so much better, I do not know much about GPU architecture, small discussion I had with The Stilt it boiled down to ROPs.

It 100% boiled down to ROPs! Notice the 290X only has 40% more SP's and like 30% more bandwidth than the 7970, and yet it performed 50 - 75% better! That is because it had DOUBLE the ROP's and ACE's. If they would have doubled the ROP's again the Fury X would have likely crushed the 980 Ti, but AMD was running out of die space and figured the extra bandwidth would help make up for this deficiency.

You know, you might be quite clueless about how things have progressed in the AMD vs Nvidia world. I've been following since back in the days when AMD (still called ATi) cards were wrecking similar Nvidia cards. 4870 vs 280, 5870 vs 470, 6970 vs 570, etc.

But sadly, AMD never made a decisive profit from those cards. Yet, Nvidia was swimming with money. AMD lost the advantage with Maxwell, but sooner than later, with Raja on the helm, I hope they get what they deserve.

Anyway, apologies for my rather foolish and childish posts, but with RX 480 getting better and better after new updates, people should in some extent avoid bragging launch day performance.

Nope not ROPs. It is all about Asynchronous computing. In short. ATi's engineers built it specifically this way. With DX11 and OpenGL, most of FijiXT's 4096SP will be in idle mode, not fully utilized at all.

Some good explanations here:

www.anandtech.com/show/9124/amd-dives-deep-on-asynchronous-shading
www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/9

Captain_TomIt 100% boiled down to ROPs! Notice the 290X only has 40% more SP's and like 30% more bandwidth than the 7970, and yet it performed 50 - 75% better! That is because it had DOUBLE the ROP's and ACE's. If they would have doubled the ROP's again the Fury X would have likely crushed the 980 Ti, but AMD was running out of die space and figured the extra bandwidth would help make up for this deficiency.

Though admittedly it would seem that way, when asked about, some developer from AMD said "we have no indication Fury X is ROP limited".

So AMD has been behind nVidia for years because their card weren't being utilized properly because Async Compute is "required"?

I would love to know who makes these decisions...

LightningJRSo AMD has been behind nVidia for years because their card weren't being utilized properly because Async Compute is "required"?

I would love to know who makes these decisions...

Async isn't required (but definitely helps). They could never get the chips fed with DX11. I'm sure that's a driver and hardware problem.

bugThough admittedly it would seem that way, when asked about, some developer from AMD said "we have no indication Fury X is ROP limited".

Hey I'm no PC hardware expert, but I think there are enough examples of the contrary to make me question if this dev is full of sh*t. I mean consider

-The example I gave with the 290X vs 7970

-Based on TFLOPs and effective bandwidth the 390X shouldn't really be any stronger than the 480 (It should be 10% weaker based on the IPC increase from GCN 4.0). And yet, the 390X still maintains a 10% lead.

-Consider how SO MANY cut down AMD cards perform almost the same as their full brethren (7950, 290, Fury, 470) even with as many as 15% less SP's. (It isn't just because they share the same bandwidth)

-Nvidia cards almost always have FAR more ROP's than their AMD counterparts, and this explains how they can get along with less bandwidth (Until they choke a year after they come out lol). Afterall ROP's are what feed the bandwidth.

^I would like this dev to explain these things.

Not really shocked, we all know that AMD is much better at DX12 than Nvidia. Makes the RX 480 start to feel like a better buy, however DX11 is still too dominant to take it out of the picture yet and they are pretty even on those fields.

My 480 outperformed my 390 in benchmarks using the same PC.

LightningJRSo AMD has been behind nVidia for years because their card weren't being utilized properly because Async Compute is "required"?

I would love to know who makes these decisions...

Surprisingly, yes.
When Nvidia went for tiled rendering (a feature that allows more efficient use of resources and thus lower power usage), AMD went and stuffed so many shaders onto the GPU, they couldn't feed them effectively (they needed async for that). Apparently this is hailed as futureproofing these days.

PewzorWhy don't you just play in DX11? I mean it's not news that nVidia isn;t very good in next gen API.
I would only play games in DX12 using nVidia if it's a GameWorks or nVidia paid games like Tomb Raider and shit, that's the only time nVidia crap works well on dx12.

I explained above that it wasn't all that stable in DX11 and bsodded Windows in DX12. Without further troubleshooting it's hard to say whether the fault is with the game, the NVIDIA driver or Windows. I'm thinking the game as my other games work fine. And again, the point is moot, because the trial period has expired and I haven't bought it, certainly not in that dysfunctional state. I've heard it's a bit of grind anyway.

P4-630Some people in the RX480 club thread iirc...

"A binned and OC'd RX480"

i mean some of these recent 480s are putting up some insane power and OC #s compared to the launch ones .. like AMD refined a few things but didnt bother to label the cards XT

xkm1948Nope not ROPs. It is all about Asynchronous computing. In short. ATi's engineers built it specifically this way. With DX11 and OpenGL, most of FijiXT's 4096SP will be in idle mode, not fully utilized at all.

Some good explanations here:

www.anandtech.com/show/9124/amd-dives-deep-on-asynchronous-shading
www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/9

haha i remember this video

@ADHDGAMING learn to use the "Multi-Quote" button instead of double posting...

RealNeilMy 480 outperformed my 390 in benchmarks using the same PC.

Only in 1080p (On average), and yeah and a 390X is 10% stronger than a 390.

Captain_TomOnly in 1080p (On average), and yeah and a 390X is 10% stronger than a 390.

I stated incorrectly. What I mean is that my 480 extreme gaming performs better than my 390X Toxic card.
Also, my two 390X toxic GPUs didn't score much more than my 290X Tri-X cards did. The 390s were a big waste of money.

P4-630@ADHDGAMING learn to use the "Multi-Quote" button instead of double posting...

thats just tells me to Dble post some more xD

ADHDGAMINGthats just tells me to Dble post some more xD

Good luck with that, A mod will send you on holiday if you keep doing that.