Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench

[nickbaldwin86]

4GB really.?.?. oh well

I hope this kicks down the prices of the 980Ti... I want two

 

[xenocide]

I wouldn't get too excited until the card is actually reviewed. AMD's marketting team isn't known for delivering exactly as they claim. Last time I saw slides like this they had Bulldozer handily beating SB i7's. We know how that turned out.

 

[RealNeil]

Price wars anyone?

 

[xenocide]

Price wars anyone?

That's a game Nvidia wins. The Fury X is an expensive piece of hardware with still pricey HBM, a pretty complicated manufacturing process, and that AIO liquid cooler. I'd be amazed if AMD was making anywhere near what Nvidia is making per sale with the 980 Ti. If Nvidia drops the 980 Ti even to $600 it hurts AMD. Dropping it to something like $550 and knocking $50 off all their cards on the way down makes AMD irrelevant at most price points...

 

[neko77025]

Thats it .. I am renaming the Fury to Perseus ... Cause it just slayed A Titan !!!!
(/dumps fuel on the fire)

From now on .. Fury X will be know to all as ... PERSEUS

 

[dwade]

But 980 ti already slayed the Titan X. And it still has more VRAM than Fury X.

 

[the54thvoid]

As @HumanSmoke says, DG Lee produces an inordinate amount of poo.

Real reviews required, not extrapolated benchmarks.

 

[bogami]

This will be enough for you every honor AMD. Now the wings fall off since NVIDIA did not have competition, and the only disadvantage is the RAM on 4Gb FuryX. Turn off AA and all will be well. There is certainly some reserve since driver is new. Now it will. Nvidia will naw be forced to lower prices. Devil(nvidia) must once get a lesson about greed.

 

[SIGSEGV]

if this bench scores were true then it's indeed very good moves for AMD.
still wanna get their upcoming hbm2 with 14nm process node gpu on next year as i have no plan to buy 4k monitor this year. i really wanna know how many scores will be gained if FURY X benched with gimpworks titles in 4K res?

 

[ZoneDymo]

nobody going to mention the R9 390x seems to preform quite a bit better then the r9 290x?

 

[rruff]

Would you choose 4 GB DDR3 over 1 GB GDDR5? The choice between HBM and GDDR5 will be similar.

Doesn't seem like a good comparison. The *quantity* of vram just needs to be enough to deal with the digital info in a frame. Besides that, if the vram is *slow* it can limit your fps, and if the processor is *slow* then it will limit your fps. Ideally all factors need to be balanced.

Currently cards like a GTX 970 or R9 290x are pretty well balanced with 4GB of GDDR5. Processor and vram speed, and vram quantity will all be near hitting the limit simultaneously.

But bring out a card with a much faster processor and much faster vram, and 4GB is no longer sufficient. It becomes the limiting factor. Because you have the hp to run high res detail except for the vram *quantity* not being enough to buffer it.

 

[nem]

so beautiful *o*

 

[dwade]

Wow.

 

[xorbe]

Beats? Maybe pips. But I hope it opens a can of whoop-ass, we need progress!

 

[Ebo]

I think some of our members have been spreading FUD no matter what.

AMD have launched a new lineup, based on completely new tech with new menory, a bandwith Nvidia can only dream of.

1 member in perticular have been very negative allready from the start. He wants maximum preformance for under 400 euros which is his max....well that NOT going to happen and even within his price range he is still unhappy while his machine have a 3 year old setup. I just dont understand it at all.

If you want the newest and best, theres a price to pay, and still AMD delivers even this time arround, at a lower price, than Nvidia has of now.
Looking at how some have been bashing AMD for not delivering stabile drivers ?, just look at Nvidia their last 3 drivers havent been stabile and caused a lot of problems for a lot of people, until the last one, so my friend tells me.

I have made my mind up, Im going for the Fury X or the Fury, all comes down to which hit the shelves first and I really dont care about the price. It can be 500-6-7 euros, I dont care, all I know is that I want it.

 

[DarthJedi]

But 980 ti already slayed the Titan X. And it still has more VRAM than Fury X.

No it does not, LOL. 980Ti is a cut down GM200/TitanX. Some factory overclocked 980Ti are faster than TitanX at stock clocks, but most samples of TitanX can overclock by 30-60% on stock air and water.

 

[RCoon]

DG Lee produces an inordinate amount of poo.

I am siggin' that, because it makes me chuckle every time I read it.

 

[Xzibit]

Wow.

Those are AMD slide favorable numbers but if they hold true.

Tom's Hardware
Titan X
Avg = 39
Min = 33

980 Ti
Avg = 38
Min = 32

R9 290X
Avg = 32
Min = 26

 

[petedread]

And I was just about to go back to Nvidia after 5 years by getting a 980ti. But if all is true then I have to give AMD some much needed cash/market share.

 

[samljer]

Card not relevant for its given performance....

I have a card now that i use at 1440p that has 4GB ram and guess what,
It locks in to 72FPS (vsync 72hz monitor) and as soon as i start turning on the eye candy
the ram runs out (long before the GPU cant handle it) - GTAV is bad for this for me

as soon as i see MSI after burner show 3998mb in use, the frame rate drops into the toilet.
its not the GPU....

so when something this powerful has 4GB only, its irrelevant.
a GPU this powerful can push content using 6gb framebuffers.
AMD FUKED up this card putting only 4.

I really wanted this card too, i waited so long, now im going to end up with the 980ti.


Take my advice guys... 4GB is not enough for this GPU.
and if your gaming at 1080.... then you dont need this GPU anyway.
my wife still uses a GTX 680 that pushes 1080 at 200fps + in most titles
with the new stuff still hitting 60-65 without breaking a sweat.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

It also looks like (If these are to be believed) that the R9 390X is more than just a rebrand.

What makes you say that? The performance is just above the level of the 290X (according to these graphs).

 

[DarthJedi]

Card not relevant for its given performance....

I have a card now that i use at 1440p that has 4GB ram and guess what,
It locks in to 72FPS (vsync 72hz monitor) and as soon as i start turning on the eye candy
the ram runs out (long before the GPU cant handle it) - GTAV is bad for this for me

as soon as i see MSI after burner show 3998mb in use, the frame rate drops into the toilet.
its not the GPU....

so when something this powerful has 4GB only, its irrelevant.
a GPU this powerful can push content using 6gb framebuffers.
AMD FUKED up this card putting only 4.

I really wanted this card too, i waited so long, now im going to end up with the 980ti.


Take my advice guys... 4GB is not enough for this GPU.
and if your gaming at 1080.... then you dont need this GPU anyway.
my wife still uses a GTX 680 that pushes 1080 at 200fps + in most titles
with the new stuff still hitting 60-65 without breaking a sweat.

Actually, no.

1. You do need this card at 1080 and 1440 because not even then some games will be playable in 60 or 144 FPS. For as long as you don't have 60 FPS as minimum, you're not experiencing the best and perfect fluidity. At least on average you should have 60 FPS for smooth gameplay. Then, we have 144Hz monitors on 1080 and 1440 that provide great experience and need power.
So yes, you NEED this card.

2. Unfortunately, yes, 4GB might not be enough for some 4K games, but for some it will be. You don't need AA anyway at 4K so most games will work fine.

3. However, those games that need more, like GTA5 at 5K don't stop at 6GB anyway. You need more than that and 980Ti can't help you. If you play at 5K, yes, for some games only TitanX works, but in most cases even at 4K Fury X will be fine.

 

[samljer]

Actually, no.

1. You do need this card at 1080 and 1440 because not even then some games will be playable in 60 or 144 FPS. For as long as you don't have 60 FPS as minimum, you're not experiencing the best and perfect fluidity. At least on average you should have 60 FPS for smooth gameplay. Then, we have 144Hz monitors on 1080 and 1440 that provide great experience and need power.
So yes, you NEED this card.

2. Unfortunately, yes, 4GB might not be enough for some 4K games, but for some it will be. You don't need AA anyway at 4K so most games will work fine.

3. However, those games that need more, like GTA5 at 5K don't stop at 6GB anyway. You need more than that and 980Ti can't help you. If you play at 5K, yes, for some games only TitanX works, but in most cases even at 4K Fury X will be fine.

1) Frame rate doesnt increase ram need, sorry.
2) 4gb isnt enough for most games at 1440p, this has been my experience for the last 2 years. Where did i say 4k?
3) 6GB is enough for GTAV with a SINGLE GPU @ 1440p I suggest you watch the linuxtechtips episode where he proved it.

thanks for playing, but you sound very abbrasive for no reason. I wont come back to this.

 

[HumanSmoke]

nobody going to mention the R9 390x seems to preform quite a bit better then the r9 290x?

Does it? I wasn't aware the card had been reviewed yet?
The only benchmarks I've seen that have some validity, are from people with cards in hand. Performance looks pretty similar.
Of course if DG Lee is actually benching the cards, I'd assume he must have had the result on screen at some stage - why not post screencaps if this is the case?

 

[DarthJedi]

1) Frame rate doesnt increase ram need, sorry.
2) 4gb isnt enough for most games at 1440p, this has been my experience for the last 2 years. Where did i say 4k?
3) 6GB is enough for GTAV with a SINGLE GPU @ 1440p I suggest you watch the linuxtechtips episode where he proved it.

thanks for playing, but you sound very abbrasive for no reason. I wont come back to this.

You seem to be very aggressive and trying to hide it. Please, keep your horses down and avoid suggesting things to people using false information or lie to them.

1. Not sure what are you replying here since there is no mention of correlation of VRAM and framerate anywhere in my post.

2. Your experience might be like that if you play specifically only the games that force high VRAM usage. On the contrary to your experience, and fortunately for gamers out there, most games do not use more than 3, let alone 4 GB of VRAM at 1440 or 2160 even.

3. It has never been said so. Read again. Yet another "topic" you reply with completely unrelated answer. Intentionally, obviously.



http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/33.html

You intentionally misinterpret and read what is not to be read anywhere and reply with answers completely irrelevant, unrelated to what you're faking to be replying to. Then you also make up information and present them as facts.

You seem to be a troll and should be banned ASAP. Hopefully moderators will remove you and your posts for good.