• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th

N

Nostremitus

Member
Quotient said:
Do we know the difference between the Fury and Fury X - is it just the cooler, air vs water?

For those with tiny miniITX cases may have difficulty with the Fury X and instead opt for the regular Fury - I'm thinking of the Node 304 as an example.
Click to expand...

That's where the Fury Nano would come in.
 
TBiddy

TBiddy

Member
Cirekiller said:
Or you know, up to about 2 weeks ago there was no way to play in 4k without spending 1000$ on a card. I have a 4k TV and I want to upgrade to 4k gaming in the near future. I'm sure there are others like me who have finally seen the price barrier drop to acceptable levels. However, no hdmi 2.0 pretty much limits us to Nvidia cards. It's not about what the demo was when price of entry s too high, it's about how many people want to jump in now and the near future, and they'll probably not go to amd.
Click to expand...

For you guys with 4k TVs without displayport, it absolutely sucks - I agree.

But AMD did take this decision based on either cost or time-to-market (as was mentioned in this thread).
 
L

Lyriell

Member
Wanted to go AMD for my 4k TV. But no HDMI 4k 60hz is a killer...

I've been AMD/ATI all my life with cards and have never had a problem, but now I'm going to have to bite the bullet and swap teams.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
Digital Storm's benchmarks show the Fury X neck-and-neck with the Titan X or 980 Ti.

It had better be an amazing overclocker or I'm not seeing a lot of sales shifting from the 980 Ti.
 
H

Hazaro

relies on auto-aim
facepalm.gif
Just wait a few hours for more reviews
 
J

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
Supposedly the reviews are going to drop in about 15 minutes (NDA expires), we'll see how it goes. I'll post the first reviews I see if I'm still hanging around.
 
J

justgames7604

Member
joshcryer said:
Supposedly the reviews are going to drop in about 15 minutes (NDA expires), we'll see how it goes. I'll post the first reviews I see if I'm still hanging around.
Click to expand...

this is probably why the new linus tech videos not out at its usual time, since they were teasing a fury in their last video.
 
O

Osiris

I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Judging by this I think I'll be going for a 980ti

23085758558l.jpg


gta5_1920_1080.gif


15% to 20% slower than a 980ti @ 1080p, that closes the door on the Fury X for me.
 
S

Seanspeed

Banned
Seems like a mixed bag so far. Does really well at 1440p/4k in some games, not as much in others. Not a great card for 1080p gaming for sure(at least not better than 980Ti).
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Nachtmaer said:
OC3D's review just popped up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3co5a-k1s&feature=em-uploademail
Click to expand...

video also links to their written review
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/1

so now we're getting reviews, I think we can move into the phase of 'wait for more mature drivers' and 'wait to see how well it overclocks'

at first glance it is an ok card. Cheaper than the 980ti for similar performance. If this has the capacity for overclocking that it should due to the cooling, then it could be a great choice. If not, then it may lose out to the 980ti unless you really need a small or ultra quiet card.
 
V

Vuze

Member
Benchmarks sound a little disappointing... atleast I expected more. But it's a decent enough card to compete with the 980Ti so there's that.
 
D

desu

Member
mrklaw said:
If not, then it may lose out to the 980ti unless you really need a small or ultra quiet card.
Click to expand...

German site hardwareluxx mentiones noise from the pump (typical Aio cooler problem) which apparently happens on other review samples as well.

Not in for GPU + AiO noise lottery.
 
J

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
mrklaw said:
so now we're getting reviews, I think we can move into the phase of 'wait for more mature drivers' and 'wait to see how well it overclocks'
Click to expand...

Yep, not any OC reviews that I see yet. That'll be todays "thing." Hopefully someone burns one out trying to OC it to death... just to see what's happening. The OC3D review took off the faceplate and it looks like the water cooled aspect is well constructed. edit G3D has some overclocking stats: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,37.html
 
Coulomb_Barrier

Coulomb_Barrier

Member
From TechPowerUp:

When run through our benchmarks the R9 Fury X shines at 4K resolution, almost matching GTX 980 Ti, with just 3% difference. NVIDIA's GTX Titan X is still 8% ahead, but the performance is extremely game dependent. Most of our titles have the Fury X head to head with NVIDIA's offerings, sometimes slightly ahead, but then there are some games where the Radeon falls behind a lot. If we cherry pick and exclude Project Cars or World of Warcraft, then Fury X almost exactly matches GTX 980 Ti - at 4K, but consider that the next game that comes out and that you want to play might have similar troubles. As soon as we start looking at lower resolutions, the performance gap suddenly widens. 4K, vs. GTX 980 Ti: -2%, 1440p: -9%, 1080p: -14%, 900p: -18%. This means that for anything below 4K gaming, which includes 1440p, the Fury X can not compete with NVIDIA's offerings. So if you are thinking about 144 Hz 1080p gaming, then GTX 980 Ti is the way to go now. For 4K gaming the Fury is good though, and it looks like AMD's driver team has gotten more active, too, a driver for Batman: Arkham Knight was released shortly after the game's launch, a welcome improvement that will hopefully last.
Click to expand...
 
jfoul

jfoul

Member
At this point I'm waiting for the AIB Fury release on July 14th. I'm extremely interested to see what type of performance we'll see from G1 Gaming class cards. I can't see these cards releasing without the proper tools to OC properly.
 
F

FLAguy954

Junior Member
So all AMD has to do is optimize for lower resolutions? Because the Fury X is losing to the 980 Ti by a good margin at resolutions lower than 1440p.

If that VisionTek Fury X price holds up ($550), I'll still get one.

Edit: damn, even the 295x2 kills it whenever Crossfire is working.

This sucks, the lack of a ROPs increase must really be hurting the scores.
 
H

Herne

Member
I'll be waiting till mid July before I decide which card to get - Fury X or something else (Fury, Nano, a GeForce card). Right now, though I'm gaming at 1080P, I'm still leaning towards one of the Fury cards. Why? It's super quiet, still a hell of a step up over my poor overworked 7970 GHz Edition, and at 1080P it'll keep me going for years. I usually upgrade my gpu every two years - I think a Fury will see me through three years if anything.

I also think the drivers, as is usually the case with AMD, will mature in time, and performance will go up, so I'm not too worried about these benchmarks. And the 1080P scores look really nice to me as is.
 
T

tarheel91

Member
FLAguy954 said:
So all AMD has to do is optimize for lower resolutions? Because the Fury X is losing to the 980 Ti by a good margin at resolutions lower than 1440p.

If that VisionTek Fury X price holds up ($550), I'll still get one.

Edit: damn, even the 295x2 kills it whenever Crossfire is working.

This sucks, the lack of a ROPs increase must really be hurting the scores.
Click to expand...

Why are you shocked that 2 290X's in crossfire outperform a single Fury X? Were you expecting this card to double a 290X's output or something?
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
I don't understand how it can be relatively weaker at 1080p? Surely its all about fillrate and pixels? if it is strong at 4k vs 980ti, it should be similarly strong at 1080p, pushing similar numbers of pixels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MSI launches Trident S PC gaming console in NA ($800, AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, Vega 7, 16GB DDR5)
2 3
123
8K
thicc_girls_are_teh_best replied
AMD Ryzen 4000 And Radeon RX Navi 2X ‘RDNA 2’ Graphics Cards Expected To Launch In October 2020
News Rumor Hardware
20
2K
TaySan replied
Alleged AMD Next-Gen Flagship Navi GPU Specifications Leaked – 5120 Cores, 24 GB HBM2e Memory, 2 TB/s Bandwidth
Rumor 2
58
5K
Knch replied
AMD hyping AMD SmartShift®
News
10
2K
IntentionalPun replied
Xbox Series X CPU Performance May Be on Par With Ryzen 5 1600/1600 AF, Analysis Suggests
2
56
8K
JareBear: Remastered replied
Top Bottom