AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4 GB

[ShurikN]

Cons of FURY X;
-4gb Limit. Yeah its HBM but it is still a limit anyone who does not believe that is stupid.

Looking at the 4k results it's clear that 4GB HBM is not limiting this card. Because it's at that res where this card actually shines.

 

[mroofie]

AMD just doesn't have the resources to top Nvidia. There's something going on with AMD but they're denying it at this point. It may just be shit rumors.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/amd-weighing-a-business-break-up-or-spin-off-reuters-says/

"It may just be shit rumors" lol

 

[jormungand]

Not trolling , but AMD have dead wish or something like that??? reading the review my face when to this....

 

[Nihilus]

Looking at the 4k results it's clear that 4GB HBM is not limiting this card. Because it's at that res where this card actually shines.

I feel we have been misled on VRAM consumption over the years. Some of these sites claim that GTA V and Middle Earth: SoM use 6 GB or more at 4k with high settings, yet looking at theses reviews, there were no signs that the Fury X hit the Vram wall.

Most were certain that the GTX 690 would suffer badly with 2 gb of useable Vram, but it was consistently stronger than the 7990.

 

[terroralpha]

after carefully examining this review and others (earlier today) , I placed an order for a Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 and an MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming. due to limited supply couldn't get 2 identical cards. but i'm OK with that. I bought them via Newegg's ebay store this morning and ebay was having the 4x ebay bucks promo. So i'm going to get about $55 back.

all that promising, "fastest GPU in the world" and other BS. this is almost like bulldozer all over again!

 

[HumanSmoke]

So yeah, GTX 980 Ti FTW.
Solid card regardless, I'm sure the peeps here that only go red will lap it up.

Customer of mine ordered a Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming. Got cold feet after seeing AMD's PR benchmarks and booked a Fury X. I picked up the G1 order with a 10% discount (restock fee), so I'm stoked as the card was already discounted down to 10% below the EVGA SC. Still might trade up if the Classified turns up the heat. (So much for sitting this generation out!)

They need a well tuned driver to exploit this card better.

I hope they bring the performance up with driver optimizations

Ah, the miracle driver Hail Mary! By the time AMD get the driver out, the gloss would certainly be off this SKU.

Overclocking suck so much.

Got to save something for Christmas sales - AMD Radeon Fury X PRO XT

Not to rub salt on any wounds but if Nvidia deign to release a full core GM200 (Titan spec) with 6Gb ram, unlimited TDP (within reason), adjustable voltage and let partners do the shroud and cooling work - the granddaddy of all gaming GPU's would take some beating at 28nm.

They may not need to - until they NEED a new SKU ( Holiday refresh for Q4). If the current models are anything to go by, the custom GTX 980Ti's should hold the line. Even if AIB's are allowed to clock the Fury X to ~ 1200-1250, I doubt that will tip the balance.

Samsung didn't become #1 by failing.

Nope, you're right. Samsung became #1 though institutionalized IP theft, wholesale bribery, and protection and sweetheart deals with government.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Nope, you're right. Samsung became #1 though institutionalized IP theft, wholesale bribery, and protection and sweetheart deals with government.

So.... Pretty much like all of the giants that are US based (regardless of sector)?

 

[CounterSpell]

it should cost $ 500

its overpriced

at least we are having competition

 

[xenocide]

Oh. Oh my. This is beautiful. It's exactly what I expected. A card that underperformed, didn't OC for crap, and was overpriced because of the CLC. I can't believe people really expected a card that shipped stock with a AIO water cooling solution would OC well. Of course it gets good temps, the cooler is like $100 tacked onto the pricetag. The power consumption is still garbage, and the performance on sub-4K resolutions is pretty bad. If this were priced around $500 or even $549.99, it would be a decent product, but at $650 I see literally no reason to buy this thing.

I feel we have been misled on VRAM consumption over the years. Some of these sites claim that GTA V and Middle Earth: SoM use 6 GB or more at 4k with high settings, yet looking at theses reviews, there were no signs that the Fury X hit the Vram wall.

TPU already kind of debunked the idea of games using 4GB+ at higher resolutions. For some reason people refused to believe that games wouldn't quickly climb to using 6GB or 8GB. Then, almost immediately after that article was published here, they reviewed The Witcher 3, which used ~2GB of VRAM at 4K, which kind of solidified the idea that VRAM saturation wasn't a real problem, lazy optimization was. A lot of games can use 6-8GB of VRAM, but most of them don't need to. There are plenty of games that adapt to the amount of VRAM available too. I remember seeing reviewed of BF3 and BF4 where on cards with more than 4GB of VRAM it would be using 3.5GB give or take, and with 3GB and 2GB cards it would be using near all of it, with no real performance loss.

 

[ShurikN]

it should cost $ 500

its overpriced

at least we are having competition

Nah man it should be for free, or better yet AMD should pay us to use it. That'll keep em in the buisness...

 

[LogitechFan]

Nah man it should be for free, or better yet AMD should pay us to use it. That'll keep em in the buisness...

If they can't compete performance-wise -- they need to discount. Or die.

 

[mouacyk]

What!? Interposer lithography has nothing to do with rop count. Just reading that analysis gave me nausea.

What AMD did wrong, in my opinion, is lazily reused 1x the front-end of Tonga and 2x its back end, while merely doubling CU count. There's a bottleneck hidden somewhere there.

They thought memory will bail them out in the end. It did, to an extent. Just not enough.

So they're selling a "new" engine with intercooled variable turbine turbocharger, but with an oldschool 2VperC/SOHC cast-iron block underneath it.

There are lots of reading suggesting that the die is near maximum size allowed by the interposer. Thus, ROPS could not be increased to make use of the additional available bandwidth. The bandwidth is ROP-starved and therefore useless. Wouldn't going with a smaller lithography allow more traces on the interposer, and in turn allow more stuff in the die? Or is the die near its maximum size, and going beyond would affect yields drastically? Just trying to understand the useless new bandwidth...

 

[Ikaruga]

@logitechfan Had to change my avatar because of you, welcome to TPU

 

[Nihilus]

A lot of games can use 6-8GB of VRAM, but most of them don't need to. There are plenty of games that adapt to the amount of VRAM available too. I remember seeing reviewed of BF3 and BF4 where on cards with more than 4GB of VRAM it would be using 3.5GB give or take, and with 3GB and 2GB cards it would be using near all of it, with no real performance loss.

The only evidence that 4 GB may be a problem was at (edit) overclock3d when the 8 GB 390x performed better than the Fury. They were running
Crysis 3 at 4k with AA. This was the only one I saw after looking at several reviews so not an absolute.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/21

 

[HumanSmoke]

The only evidence that 4 GB may be a problem was at bittech when the 8 GB 390x performed better than the Fury. They were running
Crysis 3 at 4k with AA. This was the only one I saw after looking at several reviews so not an absolute.

Dying Light is also an (albeit extreme) example, as HardOCP found

 

[btarunr]

You won't need AA on 4K as long as your display is 32-inch or smaller.

 

[Nihilus]

Why would you get a 32" or smaller 4k tv? I thought the Master PC Race was trying to get PCs to replace consoles. There will be a ton
of people with 4k displays in the next 6 months. Black Friday will be interesting as always.

After closer review of my above link, there are SEVERAL games where the 390x with 8GB give the Fury X a run for the money. You better not even THINK about xfire with the Fury X - there are so many better routes to go with from AMD and Nvidia.

 

[btarunr]

Why would you get a 32" or smaller 4k tv? I thought the Master PC Race was trying to get PCs to replace consoles. There will be a ton
of people with 4k displays in the next 6 months. Black Friday will be interesting as always.

Uhm...monitors?

I personally use a 28-inch 4K. I've never ever needed AA, in even the oldest games I've played on this display. Even if a game or GfE auto-sets an AA mode, I disable it to give myself a softer framerate cushion.

 

[nem]

leaving us fanboyismos every one know that DX11 is dying and what has claim microsoft is they want to do the transisicon to DX12 as quickly as possible to ensure that all work DX11 may portear the easiest way to the new API, also remember that one bech under DX12 was leaked and one 290x can beat the 980 this gives too much to think, where in a month there will be new bech and we'll see this is not at all a good reference to ensure the long life of a graph and see how it pays filter both architectures the nVidia has added him three irrelevant efects but lacks by dont support asynchronous shader where AMD if does ,and as far all knows this is an vital feature for performance which could provide the DX12 ... ¬___¬

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_12_levels

here the hard reality...^^

 

[Frick]

I'm really looking to the Nano to restore some faith in AMD. I'd love to get ≈ 980 performance in a SFF case like the PC-Q30 (the little curved upright ITX case with the window)

It's supposed to compete with the 970 I think.

 

[nem]

It's supposed to compete with the 970 I think.

all this bench is under drivers too green , still let too much to make better driver , meanwhile the Gefail have drivers too optimized..

 

[rubenclavs]

@All

IMO this is a great card for the money. Performance is not that worse when compare to the 980Ti.

Nvidia has mature drivers compared to AMD.

And also, AMD is working and molding with the future API which is DX12. We really never know what will happen when the time comes, but for me buying 980Ti over Fury X now then a year later DX12 games will come up, then Fury X leaves 980Ti or Titan X to dust then my upgrade won't be worth it (buy another card then).

This product right here is being released with potential for Windows 10. AMD is not saying that we need to buy this when it is released. This is a new technology with HBM and Windows 10 is coming in 1-2 months.

So relax guys. The best is yet to come. We just have wait and get there.

Cheers!

 

[fullinfusion]

A sad day for me while seeing this review but to all the ppl bitching I say this... Its new tech so deal with it. Give AMD a chance to get there drivers right and some time to tune this tech. This is new technology so I give AMD a thumbs up for being the first to change the way the cards are built.

I'll be waiting for the x2 version to come out before buying or unless the drivers get tuned accordingly but whatever.

@W1zzard
Why no 3dMark runs?

 

[some_big_freek12]

So the things that actually matter the most in performance of a card are ROPs and Pixel Fillrate?
And what are DPs?

 

[W1zzard]

Why no 3dMark runs?

we're focusing on real game tests, havent used 3dmark for years