AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Pictured Some More

[RejZoR]

I have a miniATX case with one AiO already in it. And I'm quite confident I could place a second one in there. If I've thought myself anything is that case is never too small for anything. You should see my old box, TT Lanbox with the same Core i7 920 in it. This Lian Li is luxury.

I'd have to move the CPU AiO to the exhaust port and graphic card AiO in the front...

 

[newtekie1]

I don't think people care about power consumption, rather overclocking headroom

If two cards are pretty equal in all other areas, I'm picking the one that uses less power. So it isn't something to be ignored.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

This is probably the best card to play on 1440p. Not for 4K. Or at least is not future proof for 4K.

My 780 plays every game I own at 1440p maxed out flawlessly. I'd put this card in a realm of 1600p-4k.

 

[Uplink10]

What I wish is BIOS editing tools. I've been using this on my HD6950 and now HD7950 and it's stuff sent from heaven. All this overclocking software like MSI Afterburner delivers unstable overclocking. In my case it was constantly failing and it was also not switching 2D/3D properly.

But with flashed bios, fan curve, voltage, clocks, everything is rock solid at much higher values that I could ever use in Afterburner. And best of all, system format, bootup, other OS, it's ready for performance without fiddling. Seeing how R9-290X didn't have that, it makes me sad. It'll be hard to go back on crappy software overclocking once you taste the brilliance of flashed BIOS...

I cannot even overclock my Radeon HD 7650M because every time I have to set the settings and enable that mode where there is a higher limit for overclocking in MSI Afterburner. Too bad BIOS editor does not support my card and I cannot change frequeny in card's BIOS.

But with working BIOS editor there is also a vulnerability namely an option for malware like RAT to change BIOS and destroy your components on graphic card by overclocking. I think this option should be limited to motherboard's firmware or some external acces to graphic card like if graphic card had USB acces through which you could change BIOS.

If two cards are pretty equal in all other areas, I'm picking the one that uses less power. So it isn't something to be ignored.

They are rarely equal and the price is often associated with the features like that. But I am looking forward to this time when Nvidia will not have a leaverage over AMD by these "side" features.

 

[RejZoR]

That limit increase is a total bullshit. I got everything from twitching display to lockups just because of it. Absolute rubbish. Where with BIOS, I could freely clock my core to 1200 and memory even up to 7000 MHz. It did lockup in certain games, but majority was quite happy with it. I can't even dream about such clocks using shitty OC software. Everything goes to shits after 1150/5400 basically, regardles of temperatures or voltages used...

As for malware, forget it. Destroying someone's hardware is not profitable for malware writers. They need functional machines so they can milk money from them. Killing them is bad for their business. Unless AMD was doing it, but I don't think they are a) that stupid or b) that desperate

 

[btarunr]

that 390x unboxing video is back up again

Sauce?

 

[R-T-B]

But with working BIOS editor there is also a vulnerability namely an option for malware like RAT to change BIOS and destroy your components on graphic card by overclocking. I think this option should be limited to motherboard's firmware or some external acces to graphic card like if graphic card had USB acces through which you could change BIOS.

Nonsense. This has never made sense for any malware writer. Nearly any component in your PC can ALREADY be flashed with all 0's, effectively destroying it without having to overclock or anything. No one has bothered to date.

 

[2big2fail]

That came at a cost of stripping out a lot of compute functionality. Double precision took a hit, the register file size is no bigger than GK110 (and half that of the reworked GK210), and the L1 memory cache is slightly reduced as well. Now, if the Fury X also has a crippled double precision from the Radeon Hawaii's 1/8th rate, some questions then have to be answered - especially if the Fiji GPU turns out to be a doubled in size Tonga ( which has a native FP64 rate of 1/16)

I concur. What saved AMD over the last few years was the fact that the Tahiti architecture had a the 1/4 rate and the superior opencl performance. I would have considered a Titan X until I saw the horrendous 1/32 rate. It defeats the purpose of an entry level professional card, which was the reasoning behind the $1k msrp. Now its just an insanely overpriced gaming card. I'm really hoping for a 1/4 rate on Fiji, but I settle for maintaining the 1/8 rate considering how crippled Maxwell is in that respect.

 

[ensabrenoir]

Sauce?

 

[BiggieShady]

If two cards are pretty equal in all other areas, I'm picking the one that uses less power. So it isn't something to be ignored.

What I meant is that people care more if card is cooled well and it can keep maximum boost clocks under load. That's how priorities are.
No one should ignore power consumption, it directly translates to heat and noise, only thing that trumps power consumption is price ... again priorities.

 

[happita]

I want to see a Fury and Fury X unboxing....go find it...NAOWWWWW!!!!

 

[Bansaku]

No DVI? They bloody well better throw in an active DP-DVI adaptor!

 

[damric]

No DVI? They bloody well better throw in an active DP-DVI adaptor!

If you are buying a card like this you should really be using display port.

 

[Bansaku]

If you are buying a card like this you should really be using display port.

If I were in the market for 3 new monitors, you bet. But people are not necessarily going to go out and replace their monitors at the same time they are upgrading their GPU(s).

 

[hero1]

I like the PCB being short and single slot. This will be awesome when combined with a different waterblock from EK, BP, AC etc and have a single slot setup. I will be waiting for reviews and go from there.

 

[newtekie1]

No DVI? They bloody well better throw in an active DP-DVI adaptor!

It has HDMI, so they'll include an HDMI to DVI adapter, I'm guessing.

If you are buying a card like this you should really be using display port.

Why? There are plenty of good 1440p monitors with DVI only. Why replace the monitor that you likely paid $400+ for a couple years ago just to use displayport?

 

[FYFI13]

The only moving part in this entire product is the 15 mm-thick 120 mm fan

Really, how about the pump?

 

[damric]

If I were in the market for 3 new monitors, you bet. But people are not necessarily going to go out and replace their monitors at the same time they are upgrading their GPU(s).

I advise you to upgrade your 1200p monitor before you upgrade graphics card. It would be a waste of GPU power otherwise.

 

[Prima.Vera]

My 780 plays every game I own at 1440p maxed out flawlessly. I'd put this card in a realm of 1600p-4k.

Do you also own last Witcher, Watch Dogs, GTA V, last A$$asin's Creed?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Do you also own last Witcher, Watch Dogs, GTA V, last A$$asin's Creed?

Witcher. That I haven't checked performance, but, Fury would be overkill for 1440p when the 290/290x 780/780ti/970/980 already push 1440p damn well.

 

[newtekie1]

Witcher. That I haven't checked performance, but, Fury would be overkill for 1440p when the 290/290x 780/780ti/970/980 already push 1440p damn well.

I'm going with the assumption that Fury will be close to 980Ti performance, and I have to agree that it will be overkill for 1440p, and should handle 4k pretty well with just a few settings lowered from max.

 

[RejZoR]

People are so gladly forgetting about texture streaming. You don't need 300 gazillion gigaterabytes of VRAM to play things and max possible settings even with cards that have less than absolutely ideal capacity of VRAM.

When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you only have 4GB it'll stream half of the textures.
When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you have 8GB available, it'll just store everything in VRAM.

The end result is game that essentially runs equally fast on both graphic cards and the game looks identical on both. You may experience texture pop in with streaming in certain situations, but that really depends on the game...

 

[the54thvoid]

People are so gladly forgetting about texture streaming. You don't need 300 gazillion gigaterabytes of VRAM to play things and max possible settings even with cards that have less than absolutely ideal capacity of VRAM.

When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you only have 4GB it'll stream half of the textures.
When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you have 8GB available, it'll just store everything in VRAM.

The end result is game that essentially runs equally fast on both graphic cards and the game looks identical on both. You may experience texture pop in with streaming in certain situations, but that really depends on the game...

I'm quite sure the bandwidth will adequately compensate for the 4gb ram but my 3gb cards suffered in several recent games including Shadow of Mordor because of Vram usage. Inadequate Vram has a hefty impact on gaming performance.

 

[mirakul]

People are so gladly forgetting about texture streaming. You don't need 300 gazillion gigaterabytes of VRAM to play things and max possible settings even with cards that have less than absolutely ideal capacity of VRAM.

When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you only have 4GB it'll stream half of the textures.
When game requires 6GB of VRAM and you have 8GB available, it'll just store everything in VRAM.

The end result is game that essentially runs equally fast on both graphic cards and the game looks identical on both. You may experience texture pop in with streaming in certain situations, but that really depends on the game...

This.

Not to mention with HBM's monstrous bandwidth, the streaming delay will be none to see.

And this is not 4 GB of GDDR5, it's 4 GB of HBM.

People whining about Fury's 4 GB seem to forget the time when we moved from GDDR3 for GDDR5

 

[mirakul]

Let's do some math.

You need to shoot 240 bullets, and have two guns: TitanX with a massive capacity of 120 and 4s loading time, and FuryX with 40 capacity and just 1s loading time. Assuming two guns have the same firing rate, which gun will finish the job first?

Maybe we need a 5th grader here.