Downsampling should improve IQ and performance, then.
As weird as that sounds, heh.
-
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 review thread
- Thread starter ScepticMatt
- Start date
Downsampling should improve IQ and performance, then.
As weird as that sounds, heh.
Jupp. Considering you can get a 980Ti for 6900SEK (In stock) in Sweden, and the Fury X being 7100SEK (7500SEK is the cheapest, currently in stock). Yeah, they messed up on the pricing.
Shai-Tan
Banned
it would be a lot more positive I think if it was something more like $550. At $500 people would be running out to get them but for all we know they could be supply constrained and the pricing not mattering that much anyway unless they can actually make these in volume. Nvidia pretty much completely anticipated the Fury X and beat them to the punch with the 980ti
You're going to have to hold out until Q2 or Q3 next year for new cards.
snickothemule
Member
Good looking frame times for The Witcher 3 at 1440p.
Looks more like 5% at most from the majority of benches and reviews I've read.
Considering the amount this thing was hyped, it's coming to market late, and the fact that it's AMD, it's a flop. Ok, maybe not a flop, but it's highly disappointing.
This thing was supposed to be the world beater, Titan killer, fastest card on the planet...HBM, slurp, slurp..etc. It's AMD's version of a slightly slower 980 Ti at higher resolutions, with less ram, and shitty 1080p performance. What's not to be disappointed about? Unless you just buy AMD out of principle or have fallen for the HBM = graphics revolution trap this card is a letdown. I'll take an extra 2gb of ram and better overclocking on air over an AIO water-cooled solution any day of the week.
Should have known when they dropped the price and sent out benchmarks with ridiculous setting that something was fishy. Nivida should send AMD thank you cards, they just sold a bunch of new 980 Ti's.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
To be fair I just skimmed some of the OC3D benches and saw at least 5fps difference and while it feels petty arguing over single digit fps when you are paying a premium thats the kind of thing you nitpick over.
Maybe I just didn't have these expectations that it was going to be a Titan-killer? I don't know. Seems like some people are purposefully setting it up so they can hit it harder.
I've got no 'love' for AMD or anything. But I can still see this as a card I wouldn't advise *against* buying, at least.
Read more reviews. You must have clicked on the worst ones or something. It's pretty comparable overall, but is definitely beaten significantly at 1080p.
It barely overclocks at all.
ChemicalWorld
Member
Glad i went for the EVGA GTX 980 Ti hybrid, Looking forward to overclocking it. This card would have excited me if it had monster overclocking potential. Ah well goodbye amd (hd 7950), and hello team green. 
Isn't that because they locked upping the voltage? (highly suspicious)
Yep. Around a year from now as I've said. These cards are not cheap, their cost has to be factored into how good my current 7950 is doing and how I think it will do over the next year with the games coming out. The 7950 behaving reasonably well with W3 @ 1440P has further confirmed that if I want a real big jump, I have to wait. Buying an expensive card now will likely mean in just 2 years I won't be able to game in 4K with modern titles as the FPS will be too low.
I wanted a card that could play at 4K with all details on max today, including hairworks - otherwise what's the point spending so much cash? That isn't possible. So for now, I will settle with my sub 4K gaming for another year.
That's probably the biggest problem with it right now.
Lady Siara
Member
From what I'm gathering, AMD's offering a cooler, quieter solution while Nvidia is offering a bit more horse power (currently). They've switched roles compared to last cycle.
How bizarre.
How bizarre.
Shai-Tan
Banned
does the ingame benchmark even matter for multiplayer? it seems like there's a big difference between single and multiplayer with the latter requiring much better cpu performance. and people who play online and want high frame rate (e.g. twitch streamers like rivaLxfactor and Stodeh) are usually playing with several settings in medium anyway (to get 120fps that never drops below 60)
Yea, unless you're doing dual GPU's, I don't think any single card is still 4k ready. Especially not if you value 60fps.
Looks like we're about at great-for-1440p cards, though.
I wonder if there is a lot of risk in bricking the card if it were voltage unlocked. Looking at the power usage under full load, that could be the case. With the temps it's just begging to be overclocked massively..
No brand loyalty here as I used AMD cards for years, but I really think AMD is in a lot of trouble (more) after this release. They need to get that Nano out stat and for a competitive price, or the enthusiast market is going to flat out reject the Fury line.
No brand loyalty here as I used AMD cards for years, but I really think AMD is in a lot of trouble (more) after this release. They need to get that Nano out stat and for a competitive price, or the enthusiast market is going to flat out reject the Fury line.
Systemwarrior
Member
This is kinda a let down, but on the other hand I purchased a 980 ti SC. I was expecting the Fury X to best the 980 ti/Titan X giving its on paper specs and HBM.
Guaranteed 4K next year might be dicey too.
The first 14/16nm GPUs won't be of the large die variety initially. We'll have to see if they even arrive in that generation or in the next.
One of the reviews said it's performance is tied to tessellation since GCN 1.2 has much better tessellation. It's the same reason the 285 usually was slower than the 280X and occasionally behind the 280 (when memory bandwidth was the major factor), but in heavily tessellated games it could outperform the 280X. I think that's one reason for the big variance here between reviews.
mmmhm. It isn't really cooler as it has a higher TDP. It certainly is quieter.
ScepticMatt
Member
That's it for now. I've reached the character limit.
Yeah, at 1440P I would purchase a 980TI now, the performance is worth the cost at that resolution.
I don't want two GPUs for 4K, but you're right, that's realistically all we have.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Was hoping for an unambiguous victory here to cause a bit of a shakeup, but I guess we'll have to wait for HBM2.0 cards on a smaller process node to really blow us away.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
The 980 ti beats it in almost every test
Figured this was the case when they dropped those internal benchmarks or whatever they were. They did exactly the same thing with their bulldozer release - paired their 8150 with a 7870 and showed off game benchmarks at strange settings.
Guess I'll see how the lower models go but I'll probably end up waiting for next years cards.
Guess I'll see how the lower models go but I'll probably end up waiting for next years cards.
If someone asked me what the best card to buy at this price point, 100% of the time it wouldn't be this card. However, if someone is an AMD fan and that's all they buy I'd tell them it's a great option.
As for purposefully setting it up so they can hit it harder, I've never propped this card up, in fact I've been one of the few people around here who have been skeptical since its announcement. All you have to do is read the threads on this card before today and it's easy too see that the people who had these lofty expectations were people who were dying for Nvidia to be put in their place. Maybe that's not you but it's gonna be interesting to see these same people moving the goal posts now that this thing doesn't deliver like they thought.
As much as I loathe AMD cards I was hoping against hope that it would deliver what people were claiming it would so it would force Nvidia to drop some prices. Total bummer that it didn't deliver.
Perf/watt hasn't switched though, n
@Seanspeed, yeah, I did have high expectations of the card, mostly in the 1080p segment to boot, I don't see myself switching to 4k gaming anytime soon, but I'd love to get a card that could do 1080p@144hz or @120hz on current games at least. Put it's a pipe-dream I suppose.
Still, upgrading from my 7970 reference card would give me about a 100% boost in performance in 1080p, with a much cooler and more quiet card. 7500SEK is just too high a price for it.
True, unlike the Fury which we found out today, Pascal/HBM2 performance & release dates are a complete unknown. I'm betting here on roadmaps.
It's a tough decision not buying a new toy, but sometimes you got to factor the cost/reward, and to me none of these cards make me feel like it's worth spending £500 to get 4K @ ~25-35FPS, when I can get away for now with a half-decent 1440P experience until the next round of GPUs release.
I'm somewhat convinced that they will sell out the Fury X as I'm not entirely certain that it is being produced in very large volumes.
Dictator93
Member
Nice power on show. I still think 4GB of VRAM will lead to stutters, stuttering, or hick ups of various varieties in scenarios where a larger VRAM pool would not show such behavior,
If you buy AMD only... you could maybe want this card. Maybe.
If you buy AMD only... you could maybe want this card. Maybe.
ScepticMatt
Member
So you're angry at them for Nvidia's pricing scheme?
ColdDeckEd
Member
I hate to say it but AMD's driver team screwed the pooch again. They needed to have more optimized drivers, as well as unlocked voltage (lol what happened to "overclockers dream"?), from the start as first impressions are most important. Would like to see how it performs under higher AA settings or something that would take advantage of the memory BW.
Also agree with the slightly overpriced sentiments, 599 and it would be gathering gold awards/editors choice/must buy awards.
I appreciate the cooler, think the performance gap will close considerably with driver improvements, just think AMD could have been more aggressive with the price and long for the day their driver team makes somewhat optimized drivers from day 1.
Also agree with the slightly overpriced sentiments, 599 and it would be gathering gold awards/editors choice/must buy awards.
I appreciate the cooler, think the performance gap will close considerably with driver improvements, just think AMD could have been more aggressive with the price and long for the day their driver team makes somewhat optimized drivers from day 1.
Shai-Tan
Banned
I have requested my thread to be closed (even though it was posted earlier
There seems to be a lot of variance among the reviews. For example, computerbase
it's a lot closer to parity in 4k from what I saw (unfortunately that parity in 4k is barely higher than 30fps in new games)
General Lee
Member
I guess the writing was on the wall when they didn't state that it was going to be the fastest GPU in the world back at E3. That's pretty much the usual PR shtick you've gotten from AMD, and they did already mention the FuryX2 will be the fastest card.
Overall rather disappointing launch for Fiji, and certainly not what AMD needs right now. The only positive side is the cooling, but what good is it when GCN doesn't like to OC beyond 1200 Mhz anyways? Add to that the 4GB limit, no memory oc, no HDMI 2.0 etc. the list just keeps adding up to a fail on AMD's part.
Hopefully they'll do better on Win 10, but as it stands, I'd rather take a custom 980 Ti if the prices were similar.
Overall rather disappointing launch for Fiji, and certainly not what AMD needs right now. The only positive side is the cooling, but what good is it when GCN doesn't like to OC beyond 1200 Mhz anyways? Add to that the 4GB limit, no memory oc, no HDMI 2.0 etc. the list just keeps adding up to a fail on AMD's part.
Hopefully they'll do better on Win 10, but as it stands, I'd rather take a custom 980 Ti if the prices were similar.
digitalrelic
Banned
Man, this is sad. AMD is screwed.