• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

FineWine===>FineVinegar FuryX Aging Horrible in 2017

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 50521
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
^^This. Although my 980Ti performs excellent still, it doesn't perform like a flagship anymore, but I don't expect it to either.

Yup my card wasn't the flagship at the time it was built, but I honestly didn't need it to be either.

Still a well built unit though.
 
Ah , it's one of those threads. :laugh:

Quickly , pick your team :

- Team xkm1948 , get an AMD card , complain all the time about it
- Team RejZoR , get an Nvidia card , complain all the time about it

Seriously , don't lie to yourself that AMD burned you , in the end ya'll bought exactly what you wanted. Coming after close to 3 years and complaining that your (once) very expensive and powerful card doesn't keep up and eat alive all the new games is rather meaningless and pointless to say the least.

If you think Nvidia will give you a card that will provide unrivaled performance millennia after you bought it then by all means , be our guest no one is stopping you. I don't think it will but hey.
I bet this time round it's Vega that's gonna age better than Pascal, unless Raja's departure has an impact on the driver team. Still, the release schedule for amd got shifted so much that it's hardly objective to compare a june 2016 released pascal with august 2017 released vega. No wonder a 14 months newer card will grow more in 2018. It'll get stomped by new nvidia cards in the process but still maybe get some breathing space over GTX1080.
 
See this is a good post showing a wider sample size. We've got multiple sources, variables, and testing methodologies all coming to a consensus. However, this is still only a single game and the consensus is "the Fury X performs poorly in this one game"
The reddit post is filled with this :


Mass Effect Andromeda

980Ti is ~40% faster than FuryX @1080p, ~30% @1440p! FuryX is barely faster than a 480 or 1060.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-andromeda-test-gpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mass-...55712/Specials/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-1223325/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/mass_effect_andromeda_pc_performance_review/6

http://pclab.pl/art73529-5.html

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...ffect_andromeda_pc_ludzkie_wymagania?page=0,7

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/mass-effect-andromeda-test/strona/27745.html

Tekken 7

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @4K, the only resolution that isn't CPU limited, 980 is almost as fast as the FuryX.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/tekken-7-test-gpu-cpu

Agents Of Mayhem

980Ti is 58% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/agents-of-mayhem-test-gpu-cpu

Dishonored Death Of Outsider

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 24% faster @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-death-of-the-outsider-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes..._death_of_the_outsider_bywalo_gorzej?page=0,8

Project Cars 2

980Ti is 43% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p!

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Proje...Specials/Benchmark-Test-Grafikkarten-1238952/

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/project_cars_2_pc_performance_review/9 http://pclab.pl/art75527-5.html

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/project-cars2-test/strona/28644.html

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...jnosci_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,7

F1 2017

GTX1070 is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08/f1-2017-pc-benchmark/2/#diagramm-f1-2017-1920-1080

Total War Warhammer 2

980Ti is 40% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 35% faster @1440p, even a GTX 1060 is equal or faster than FuryX

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-warhammer-ii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...60823/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1240653/

Destiny 2

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/destiny-2-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10/destiny-2-benchmark/2/#diagramm-destiny-2-1920-1080

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Desti...Destiny-2-PC-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1241945/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/destiny_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/destiny_2_pc_performance_review/8

Assassin's Creed Origins

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even 980 is equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-origins-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-Origins-Spiel-61043/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1242105/2/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...2/#diagramm-assassins-creed-origins-1920-1080

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/assassins-creed-origins-wrazenia-i-testy/strona/28834.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/assassin_s_creed_origins_pc_performance_review/8 http://wccftech.com/assassins-creed-origins-graphics-card-performance/

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...n_s_creed_origins_problemy_w_egipcie?page=0,9

Ark Survival Evolved

980Ti is 20~30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, even a GTX 1060 is faster or equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ark-survival-evolved-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/ARK-S...5571/Specials/Release-Benchmark-Test-1237821/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

The Evil Within 2

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-evil-within-2-test-gpu-cpu

Call Of Duty WW2

980Ti is 35% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 25% faster @1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...-of-Duty-WW2-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1242690/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11...abschnitt_frametimes_von_vega_64_und_gtx_1080

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-wwii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_ww2_pc_graphics_analysis_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/9

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._duty_wwii_dramat_graczy_i_zolnierzy?page=0,9

Wolfenstein 2:

980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wolfe...us-im-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-Vulkan-1242138/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nstein-2-1920-1080-anspruchsvolle-testsequenz

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu

Shadow Of War

980Ti is 20% faster @1080p, and 50% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...amm-mittelerde-schatten-des-krieges-2560-1440

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...th_shadow_of_war_srodziemie_w_ogniu?page=0,10

Forza 7

980Ti is 30% faster @1080p and 1440p, even GTX 1060 is faster!

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/#diagramm-forza-7-3840-2160

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/76...ideokaarten-testresultaten-ultra-hd-3840x2160

Player's Unkown BattleGround

GTX 1060 is 16% faster than FuryX @1080p and 10% faster @1440p!

https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html

Need For Speed Payback

980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...iew-Release-Test-Systemanforderungen-1243074/

FortNite

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 20% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/fortnite-test-gpu-cpu
 
I bet this time round it's Vega that's gonna age better than Pascal, unless Raja's departure has an impact on the driver team. Still, the release schedule for amd got shifted so much that it's hardly objective to compare a june 2016 released pascal with august 2017 released vega. No wonder a 14 months newer card will grow more in 2018. It'll get stomped by new nvidia cards in the process but still maybe get some breathing space over GTX1080.

I hope Vega ages better for the exact reasons you pointed to, and also because there are a load of features that still aren't functioning on consumer Vega. Quite a bit of potential that we just haven't seen yet. That said, Pascal seems to be exceptionally entrenched in each of nVidia's current markets, and we will probably see continued support for at least the duration that Fermi saw (5+ years) if not longer.
 
I don't expect my 980Ti to last me forever. It'll last me as long as it gives acceptable performance for my needs. If by some chance that only happened to be 2 years, then I would upgrade. If it lasts me 4 or 5 years, then I'll upgrade then.

Squabbling about such things of older cards seems childish. If you don't like how AMD does things or feel they're not offering proper support for a card that's coming up on 3 years old, then don't get their stuff. Same thing with Nvidia. Anyone with a bit of computer hardware knowledge surely understands that technology rapidly changes and things that were once new are quickly replaced with better things......right?

I fail to see what sort of usefulness all this finger pointing does.
 
I bet this time round it's Vega that's gonna age better than Pascal, unless Raja's departure has an impact on the driver team. Still, the release schedule for amd got shifted so much that it's hardly objective to compare a june 2016 released pascal with august 2017 released vega. No wonder a 14 months newer card will grow more in 2018. It'll get stomped by new nvidia cards in the process but still maybe get some breathing space over GTX1080.

Only if AMD doesn't ditch GCN / scrap away a lot of it's features. I hope they don't but who knows.

Anyone with a bit of computer hardware knowledge surely understands that technology rapidly changes and things that were once new are quickly replaced with better things......right?

Not when your favorite color gets the better of you. :laugh:
 
Only if AMD doesn't ditch GCN / scrap away a lot of it's features. I hope they don't but who knows.



Not when your favorite color gets the better of you. :laugh:

I suspect after this line they May go 1 more or may ditch it...
 
The reddit post is filled with this :


Mass Effect Andromeda

980Ti is ~40% faster than FuryX @1080p, ~30% @1440p! FuryX is barely faster than a 480 or 1060.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-andromeda-test-gpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mass-...55712/Specials/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-1223325/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/mass_effect_andromeda_pc_performance_review/6

http://pclab.pl/art73529-5.html

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...ffect_andromeda_pc_ludzkie_wymagania?page=0,7

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/mass-effect-andromeda-test/strona/27745.html

Tekken 7

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @4K, the only resolution that isn't CPU limited, 980 is almost as fast as the FuryX.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/tekken-7-test-gpu-cpu

Agents Of Mayhem

980Ti is 58% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/agents-of-mayhem-test-gpu-cpu

Dishonored Death Of Outsider

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 24% faster @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-death-of-the-outsider-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes..._death_of_the_outsider_bywalo_gorzej?page=0,8

Project Cars 2

980Ti is 43% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p!

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Proje...Specials/Benchmark-Test-Grafikkarten-1238952/

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/project_cars_2_pc_performance_review/9 http://pclab.pl/art75527-5.html

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/project-cars2-test/strona/28644.html

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...jnosci_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,7

F1 2017

GTX1070 is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08/f1-2017-pc-benchmark/2/#diagramm-f1-2017-1920-1080

Total War Warhammer 2

980Ti is 40% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 35% faster @1440p, even a GTX 1060 is equal or faster than FuryX

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-warhammer-ii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...60823/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1240653/

Destiny 2

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/destiny-2-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10/destiny-2-benchmark/2/#diagramm-destiny-2-1920-1080

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Desti...Destiny-2-PC-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1241945/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/destiny_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/destiny_2_pc_performance_review/8

Assassin's Creed Origins

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even 980 is equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-origins-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-Origins-Spiel-61043/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1242105/2/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...2/#diagramm-assassins-creed-origins-1920-1080

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/assassins-creed-origins-wrazenia-i-testy/strona/28834.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/assassin_s_creed_origins_pc_performance_review/8 http://wccftech.com/assassins-creed-origins-graphics-card-performance/

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...n_s_creed_origins_problemy_w_egipcie?page=0,9

Ark Survival Evolved

980Ti is 20~30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, even a GTX 1060 is faster or equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ark-survival-evolved-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/ARK-S...5571/Specials/Release-Benchmark-Test-1237821/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

The Evil Within 2

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-evil-within-2-test-gpu-cpu

Call Of Duty WW2

980Ti is 35% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 25% faster @1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...-of-Duty-WW2-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1242690/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11...abschnitt_frametimes_von_vega_64_und_gtx_1080

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-wwii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_ww2_pc_graphics_analysis_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/9

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._duty_wwii_dramat_graczy_i_zolnierzy?page=0,9

Wolfenstein 2:

980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wolfe...us-im-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-Vulkan-1242138/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nstein-2-1920-1080-anspruchsvolle-testsequenz

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu

Shadow Of War

980Ti is 20% faster @1080p, and 50% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...amm-mittelerde-schatten-des-krieges-2560-1440

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...th_shadow_of_war_srodziemie_w_ogniu?page=0,10

Forza 7

980Ti is 30% faster @1080p and 1440p, even GTX 1060 is faster!

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/#diagramm-forza-7-3840-2160

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/76...ideokaarten-testresultaten-ultra-hd-3840x2160

Player's Unkown BattleGround

GTX 1060 is 16% faster than FuryX @1080p and 10% faster @1440p!

https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html

Need For Speed Payback

980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...iew-Release-Test-Systemanforderungen-1243074/

FortNite

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 20% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/fortnite-test-gpu-cpu


In an exceptional number of these there is a very overlooked data series that really should not be; 99th percentile. Comparing averages is pretty pointless if the minimums are erratic, and with a lot of these "it's 40% slower!" results a glance at the 99% is still pointing to the Fury X (and in extension, the RX 580 and 390X) holding higher minimums with a less drastic delta.

Granted that doesn't apply to all of them, and again you could cherry pick out data points to support either side from the sources provided. The consensus is against the Fury X but just to throw in my personal bias, formed from being an owner of the card (plus a 980, 1070, and 1080 Ti) and from a bit more thorough overview of the data; it looks normal.

Why does this look normal? Because Fiji as a whole has been nitpicked down to the finest details and the resounding impression since day 0 has been; too little VRAM, not enough shader utilization. At launch it wasn't a huge deal, but now we're seeing games using 6GB+ at what used to be fairly conservative settings, so not only is the monolithic shader arrangement sputtering but the VRAM limit is being pegged at functionally every resolution. We saw this coming. Everybody who had hands-on said this would be a problem.

So my opinion on the matter is that we are seeing the criticisms of the design come true, and that's fine. I do not think the card has aged poorly in the regard that it has somehow degraded in performance simply because that isn't true. It has aged exactly as expected.

This has led me to want to do my own testing and gather more data on the subject, even just to corroborate others findings.
 
The reddit post is filled with this :


Mass Effect Andromeda

980Ti is ~40% faster than FuryX @1080p, ~30% @1440p! FuryX is barely faster than a 480 or 1060.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-andromeda-test-gpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mass-...55712/Specials/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-1223325/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/mass_effect_andromeda_pc_performance_review/6

http://pclab.pl/art73529-5.html

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...ffect_andromeda_pc_ludzkie_wymagania?page=0,7

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/mass-effect-andromeda-test/strona/27745.html

Tekken 7

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @4K, the only resolution that isn't CPU limited, 980 is almost as fast as the FuryX.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/tekken-7-test-gpu-cpu

Agents Of Mayhem

980Ti is 58% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/agents-of-mayhem-test-gpu-cpu

Dishonored Death Of Outsider

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 24% faster @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-death-of-the-outsider-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes..._death_of_the_outsider_bywalo_gorzej?page=0,8

Project Cars 2

980Ti is 43% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p!

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Proje...Specials/Benchmark-Test-Grafikkarten-1238952/

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/project_cars_2_pc_performance_review/9 http://pclab.pl/art75527-5.html

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/project-cars2-test/strona/28644.html

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...jnosci_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,7

F1 2017

GTX1070 is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08/f1-2017-pc-benchmark/2/#diagramm-f1-2017-1920-1080

Total War Warhammer 2

980Ti is 40% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 35% faster @1440p, even a GTX 1060 is equal or faster than FuryX

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-warhammer-ii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...60823/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1240653/

Destiny 2

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/destiny-2-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10/destiny-2-benchmark/2/#diagramm-destiny-2-1920-1080

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Desti...Destiny-2-PC-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1241945/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/destiny_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/destiny_2_pc_performance_review/8

Assassin's Creed Origins

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even 980 is equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-origins-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-Origins-Spiel-61043/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1242105/2/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...2/#diagramm-assassins-creed-origins-1920-1080

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/assassins-creed-origins-wrazenia-i-testy/strona/28834.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/assassin_s_creed_origins_pc_performance_review/8 http://wccftech.com/assassins-creed-origins-graphics-card-performance/

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...n_s_creed_origins_problemy_w_egipcie?page=0,9

Ark Survival Evolved

980Ti is 20~30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, even a GTX 1060 is faster or equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ark-survival-evolved-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/ARK-S...5571/Specials/Release-Benchmark-Test-1237821/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

The Evil Within 2

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-evil-within-2-test-gpu-cpu

Call Of Duty WW2

980Ti is 35% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 25% faster @1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...-of-Duty-WW2-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1242690/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11...abschnitt_frametimes_von_vega_64_und_gtx_1080

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-wwii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_ww2_pc_graphics_analysis_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/9

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._duty_wwii_dramat_graczy_i_zolnierzy?page=0,9

Wolfenstein 2:

980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wolfe...us-im-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-Vulkan-1242138/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nstein-2-1920-1080-anspruchsvolle-testsequenz

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu

Shadow Of War

980Ti is 20% faster @1080p, and 50% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...amm-mittelerde-schatten-des-krieges-2560-1440

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...th_shadow_of_war_srodziemie_w_ogniu?page=0,10

Forza 7

980Ti is 30% faster @1080p and 1440p, even GTX 1060 is faster!

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/#diagramm-forza-7-3840-2160

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/76...ideokaarten-testresultaten-ultra-hd-3840x2160

Player's Unkown BattleGround

GTX 1060 is 16% faster than FuryX @1080p and 10% faster @1440p!

https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html

Need For Speed Payback

980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...iew-Release-Test-Systemanforderungen-1243074/

FortNite

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 20% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/fortnite-test-gpu-cpu

Don't try so hard, there are people you can't win over with facts.
 
With latest drivers. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1070_Ti_STRIX/30.html

perfrel_1920_1080.png


 
I believe W1zz uses reference 1000 base clock on the 980 Ti which doesn't do it any favours. It's an overclockers dream after all.
 
Maxwell , like Pascal , doesn't stay at the base clock though. It's probably well into the 1200s in actual fact.
 
Bottom of the line is every one of these benchmarks just show what we already knew , both of these had and still have the same ballpark performance.
 
Indeed, but those equally graphs don't paint the full picture, hence the confusion in this thread i guess.
 
What picture... instead of complaining, OP should have sold the card months ago... where's the problem.
 
Last edited:
If you want to compare apples to oranges, then, well, yes ofcourse you can OC every single card and run them in different configurations and then compare between these configurations. But that wont be a valid comparision anymore, for a baseline perf that is.

I actually have had most of these cards. They are all in the same ballpark if pitted head to head with direct competitor. Every card in below comparision is on stable OC frequency.

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/.../spy/300287/spy/389364/spy/1988958/spy/223400

(as you can see one half of the results is from my previous conf, an X99+E5 xeon - but i have numbers with GTX1080 for both Ryzen 7 and E5, not much difference between them)
 
Oh come on stop making sense. This is a xkm1948 thread. Only bashing AMD is approved here

perfrel_1920_1080.png
perfrel_2560_1440.png
perfrel_3840_2160.png


Find the humor in it. Like how it took him 2.5yrs to come to such a conclusion, which I doubt we have heard the last of. Should have put that time to good use and saved up for a replacement if he was so displeased with it but he wouldn't have graced us with the countless AMD bashing post and threads.

I think he likes the trolling the attention.

His real problem is here, he got a card that was not made for CUDA and asked a company to help when it's not there tech.

nVidia got back to him, and rightly so they should as CUDA is there baby after all.

I just do VR and CUDA coding, so your problems with nvidia may not be applicable to me. I just want the performance and good tech support.


So I will give you my Fury X for your 1080Ti, deal? :D

What picture... instead of complaining, OP should have sold the card months ago... where's the problem.

Could of made a good part of the money back if he did, prices dropped a little now.

It's like me buying another AMD card when i know Arma 3 runs better on nVidia and then complaining about it.
 
Last edited:
If you want to compare apples to oranges, then, well, yes ofcourse you can OC every single card and run them in different configurations and then compare between these configurations. But that wont be a valid comparision anymore, for a baseline perf that is.

I actually have had most of these cards. They are all in the same ballpark if pitted head to head with direct competitor. Every card in below comparision is on stable OC frequency.

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/.../spy/300287/spy/389364/spy/1988958/spy/223400

(as you can see one half of the results is from my previous conf, an X99+E5 xeon - but i have numbers with GTX1080 for both Ryzen 7 and E5, not much difference between them)

Again, just pointing out most AIB cards famously added 15-20% more performance.

TechSpot did a nice follow article on the two cards earlier in the year:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1329-buying-gpu-radeon-fury-geforce-980/

But yeah, you're right it equally dispels the myth that Maxwell has aged badly in comparison too.

I guess at the end of the day I'm still happy with my card and he isn't.

/Shrugs
 
Last edited:
His real problem is here, he got a card that was not made for CUDA and asked a company to help when it's not there tech.

nVidia got back to him, and rightly so they should as CUDA is there baby after all.





Could of made a good part of the money back if he did, prices dropped a little now.

It's like me buying another AMD card when i know Arma 3 runs better on nVidia and then complaining about it.

You are good at twisting facts.

Owning a radeon i started seeking help from AMD regarding OpenCL. For a span of 2 months i got zero help.

Then I progressed on to email Nvidia tech support on OpenCL. They called me and we discussed both OpenCL and CUDA




AMD emphasized big on their GPU being "compute friendly" which was obe of many reasons I initially bought the card. However their support for their heavily promoted "compute solution " is so poor that really saddens me
 
NVIDIA support is responsive. But until they elevate the inquiry to higher level, you'll be talking to people who don't seem to have much clue about anything. And even that isn't a guaranteed issue solving. The image tearing thing got me to a point where they said "We currently don't have a solution". And that's that. I have to wait for someone to hopefully fix it sometime. That's reassuring for an 800€ purchase of a graphic card...
 
NVIDIA support is responsive. But until they elevate the inquiry to higher level, you'll be talking to people who don't seem to have much clue about anything. And even that isn't a guaranteed issue solving. The image tearing thing got me to a point where they said "We currently don't have a solution". And that's that. I have to wait for someone to hopefully fix it sometime. That's reassuring for an 800€ purchase of a graphic card...

Offer still stands man. You get to enjoy a Radeon and I get what I want. Deal? FuryX for your 1080Ti? I will cover all shipping. :D
 
You are good at twisting facts.

Owning a radeon i started seeking help from AMD regarding OpenCL. For a span of 2 months i got zero help.

Then I progressed on to email Nvidia tech support on OpenCL. They called me and we discussed both OpenCL and CUDA




AMD emphasized big on their GPU being "compute friendly" which was obe of many reasons I initially bought the card. However their support for their heavily promoted "compute solution " is so poor that really saddens me

Not at all, i just went by what you said so no i did not twist any thing, lets face it anyways your going get more support from nVidia ( at least expect it )as they can afford too even more so for the prices they charge.
 
So if in my cherry picked results the other cards have "made strides," why is the Fury X still trailing the 980 Ti like it was in 2015? Surely if performance increased across the board it would have left the Fury X in the dust as the other set of cherry picked results show?

See how the data sets provide arguments for both sides of this debate? It's inconclusive at best.

Fury X and 980ti went neck and neck back then, and it was only THE OC that pushed the 980ti ahead of the Fury X while stock vs stock the Fury X would do better as resolution went up and worse at 1080p. With newer titles, the balance has shifted dramatically because now the Fury X loses a lot more even stock vs stock *and* independant of resolution, which precisely counters the 'fine wine' idea. My comment about WW2 was off the mark btw its the exact other way around, my bad.

Refer also to the older reviews around release of the Fury X/980ti and relative performance, surely you can see the difference.

I think what happened with Fury X is a bad omen for what's going to happen with Vega and ultimately Navi - AMD has forced itself to support multiple memory subsystems for their GPU products now, which stretches their limited resources and driver teams even more across the coming few years. It doesn't bode well - imagine them also adding MCM alongside their single-die products.



BTW could we get a 'Buyers Remorse' megathread and lump all of this nonsense in there? Because that's what it all boils down to and like @erocker nicely pointed out, it happens in all camps.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top