Support NeoGAF

[Mrbob]

Whelp, those reviews are disappointing to say the least. No way I'm dropping 649 on a Fury X. At this price point I'll get a 980 ti instead. Hopefully the Tiger Direct price point is accurate.

I might sit out a year now and see how HBM 2.0 shakes things up.

Is AMD Roy hiding now?

 

[Seanspeed]

What about VR, with currently known VR HMDs resolutions?

Don't know yet. I mean, gotta remember that VR initially renders at like 40% higher resolution than output resolution, so I'm not sure how much that plays a part.

I'm at 1440p, and the HardOCP review shows a 15-20 % advantage for the 980 Ti.

Cant open the site page right now for some reason, but that would be in stark, stark contrast to everybody else's benchmarks, which show it being marginally slower at best at 1440p and overall fairly comparable.

 

[Toski]

I wonder what version of GCN its using. Is it 1.1 or 1.2? I would be shocked if its 1.1

Anyways AMD better bring it for 14/16nm otherwise they're probably shut-out of the mid/high end and enthusiast market.

 

[k4n3]

Battlefield 4
Initially, I tested BF4 on the Radeons using the Mantle API, since it was available. Oddly enough, the Fury X's performance was kind of lackluster with Mantle, so I tried switching over to Direct3D for that card. Doing so boosted performance from about 32 FPS to 40 FPS. The results below for the Fury X come from D3D.

WOW that's really disappointing, the only reason i got a 290x was for mantle and BF4/battlefront

http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/11

 

[Ty4on]

All those results tell me is that AMD truly does suck at Driver development, I mean 2 years to get the drivers to realise the potential performance of a card, that's some quality bullshit, not something to be lauded at all.


It's not that the drivers improve, it's that they suck so badly at first that they can only improve, and it shouldn't take two years to get there,

Those games aren't all two years old though. Optimizing drivers for specific games is sadly a must for both sides.

I wonder what version of GCN its using. Is it 1.1 or 1.2? I would be shocked if its 1.1

Anyways AMD better bring it for 14/16nm otherwise they're probably shut-out of the mid/high end and enthusiast market.

1.2
The Tech Report review shows texture compression in action vs the 290X which has none. That's a 1.2 feature which used to only be present in Tonga.

 

[Osiris]

I wouldn't tell somebody *not* to buy this card if it fit their needs somehow or anything.

I just think $50 less and it would have done more damage.

The problem is that there is almost nothing about this card that makes it worth recommending it over a 980ti, the AIO cooler is fine as an option, unless you are already watercooling your PC in which case it's worse than useless. (I use a corsair closed loop cooler, so no chance of fitting another radiator).

It would have needed to be cheaper than the 980ti by a more significant margin to have a place on the market, IMO, not $50 cheaper, more like $100 cheaper.

 

[FLAguy954]

Average FPS isn't the issue, stuttering is.

Sure but the Fury X barely stutters with 2 GB less of RAM. See see many here are exaggerating the frametimes of the Fury X. They are a huge improvement over the 290X and within reach of the 980 Ti. This should be a plus imo.

 

[Seanspeed]

The problem is that there is almost nothing about this card that makes it worth recommending it over a 980ti, the AIO cooler is fine as an option, unless you are already watercooling your PC in which case it's worse than useless. (I use a corsair closed loop cooler, so no chance of fitting another radiator).

It would have needed to be cheaper than the 980ti by a more significant margin to have a place on the market, IMO, not $50 cheaper, more like $100 cheaper.

Runs cooler, it's nearly silent by most accounts(aside from a few reviews of water pump noise which could be fixed), and Day 1 it's pretty comparable to the 980Ti at 1440p, which is where I imagine most people will playing. Given a bit of time, it might actually improve on that and overtake it. Just talking stock, at least. So for those who don't want to tinker.

It is also on-paper cheaper than anything but reference 980Ti's. Not by a huge margin, but enough of one that it's still a consideration.

If it was an absolute $50 cheaper than it is now, I think it'd be highly recommendable as an option(not to say it's better, just that I wouldn't argue against somebody who wants to get one).

 

[thelastword]

There is no reason to doubt their methodologies or reviews. They are very good at what they do.

Why a german site? I live in germany, speak german, and they happen to be one of the best.

Other than that I usually read Guru3D or PcPer.

Instead of telling me what I should doubt or not, why don't you tell me why they chose the lowest end AMD GPU to compare the 980ti and the Fury X in frametime tests? I just found it puzzling that the 390 was better in the majority of their tests on that very page, yet they never compared it against those. If it is that 4GB HBM does not hang with cards with more vram at 4k, that would have been a better comparison so that we could get some perspective on the matter.

Because when you're voltage limited you can throw all the cooling in the world at it but you still won't gain frequency.

Ok, but that can be adjusted and altered via firmware, no? So AMD could open it up.....correct?

What's with the german hate? lol. computerbase is a fantastic site, very credible and detailed.

I have no problems with germans btw. It's just that many persons don't read german on here. When someone refers me to a site, I like to read it, not just watch pretty pictures.

 

[cyberheater]

I'm was worried that I recently bought a GTX970 that I should have waiting. After reading the reviews, I've got no buyers remorse.

 

[Sinistral]

Aftermarket 980TI OC is the clear winner this year. Performance, features, no argument can be made. Still sad to see the upward trend for cost of High End video cards though.

It's great AMD is able to catch up but, they were clearly blindsided by the 980TI. Who wouldn't be though. 3 Months after the TitanX for $350 less and ~5% less performance before excellent overclocking headroom, which then blows the TX away, without the excessive ram.

Another misstep from AMD touting "an overclockers dream" to not have full overclocking features for reviewers.

2H 2016 will be the time AMD proves it will still be relevant in the PC industry. I don't see GPU marketshare changing all too much. Zen and Arctic Islands will be the battle for relevancy in the PC Market for AMD. They'll have to not only compete, but compete in a timely manner.

FuryX is too little too late.

Still too rich for my poor Canadian dollar self. Hopefully the rumors of the Fury ($550 US) are true and that the only difference between it and the FuryX are the AIO Water cooler. Anything less will be questionable. 980 is too expensive for the relative performance, 390X is a heater and old tech. My GTX770 2GB needs replacing for VR.

 

[viveks86]

If the card isn't a good overclocker, then what purpose does the watercooler serve? Was that needed for the card to even run properly at stock?

 

[oxidax]

My only hope is that they unlock the voltage more. I think this card over clocked will outperform the 980ti. With that said, I'm sure the custom cards will do that too when they come out or if.

 

[Gritesh]

I'm on the phone with tiger direct Right now trying to get it for their price I put in today.

 

[x3sphere]

OC to OC comparison at this point is not really valid as those are voltage unlocked OC vs stock voltage. Of course extra voltage will unlock significant headroom.

Also several reviews like guru3d have them almost identical in 1440p with the exception of gta v and bf4.

It is a fair comparison as no one is adding volts to get massive overclocks on the 980 Ti. These are the overclocks most people will get. I'm not sure about the G1 Gaming but the EVGA ACX is still based on the reference board design so has stock volts.

Now perhaps the Fury will open a lot more with voltage - but the 980 Ti does too. People with modded bios on water have gotten upwards of 1500 MHz on the core.

 

[FLAguy954]

It is a fair comparison as no one is adding volts to get massive overclocks on the 980 Ti. These are the overclocks most people will get. I'm not sure about the G1 Gaming but the EVGA ACX is still based on the reference board design so has stock volts.

Now perhaps the Fury will open a lot more with voltage - but the 980 Ti does too. People with modded bios on water have gotten upwards of 1500 MHz on the core.

At the end of the day though, people have to remember that Maxwell is a completely different approach vs Kepler while the Fury X as a very iterative version of GCN first gen. We'll most likely see much better overclocking from AMD when GCN gets the Maxwell treatment.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Ok, but that can be adjusted and altered via firmware, no? So AMD could open it up.....correct?

That would be the theory. AMD better hope this thing scales like crazy with more voltage.

 

[Ionic]

I'm on the phone with tiger direct Right now trying to get it for their price I put in today.

Report back on if it worked and when they expect to ship them.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Now perhaps the Fury will open a lot more with voltage - but the 980 Ti does too. People with modded bios on water have gotten upwards of 1500 MHz on the core.

What modified? Techpowerup hit 1512 on their stock G1 on air. This thing is a god damned monster.

 

[Journey]

Tom's Hardware

There, sitting alongside Nvidia’s gaming champion, Radeon R9 Fury X now shares the throne. It’s not faster, it’s not cheaper and it’s certainly not any more elegant. The card is just enough to yield a bit of parity. And for the AMD faithful, that’s enough to warrant a purchase. We have to wonder if the company stopped just short of the gold, though. More speed, a lower price, some sort of game bundle—it could have gone in several directions, really, to convince enthusiasts that Fury X is the better buy.


Damnit AMD every time I want to believe in you.....

Sharing the throne is not exactly a failure, especially when the card is a bit cheaper, runs cooler, quieter and has a smaller form factor.

Are there any benches with Unreal Engine 4 or anything that will be more predominant 2 years from now? I'm curious to know if the bandwidth advantage would be more significant with more bandwidth heavy engines/effects. Most cards will run today's games just fine, but when I invest in a card like this, I'm more interested how it's going to run the games of the next 2 years at least.

 

[Don Lapre]

Sharing the throne is not exactly a failure, especially when the card is a bit cheaper, runs cooler, quieter and has a smaller form factor.

Are there any benches with Unreal Engine 4 or anything that will be more predominant 2 years from now? I'm curious to know if the bandwidth advantage would be more significant with more bandwidth heavy engines/effects. Most cards will run today's games just fine, but when I invest in a card like this, I'm more interested how it's going to run the games of the next 2 years at least.

AMD cant afford to be just parity with the 980ti.

 

[Kaako]

God damnit AMD, I was hoping you'd be able to light some kind of fire under NVidia's ass but you failed it seems. Disappointed in the performance overall and no overclocking!? The fuck is mang...sigh.

 

[FLAguy954]

Alatar from OCN posted a screen of Anantech's benches, looks really close with the 980 Ti winning the majority of the time though:

Man, AMD should of officially launched this at $550. 85-90% of the 980 Ti for $100 less with water-cooling would be much more enticing.

 

[Journey]

AMD cant afford to be just parity with the 980ti.

Parity overall, but if you're looking to run your games at 4K, whether on a native 4K display or to down-sample, Fury X beats 980ti, and from the looks of it, the more bandwidth required, the more Fury X flexes it's muscles, so I'm curious to know how UE4 or other future engines and games that increase the bandwidth requirements will fair on these cards. Bandwidth is not a bottleneck today unless you try to run at 4K, but how will that change with future games? I don't upgrade every year, so I want to be set for 2 years at a minimum.

 

[Van Owen]

Why did they call this an overclocker's dream?

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Alatar from OCN posted a screen of Anantech's benches, looks really close with the 980 Ti winning the majority of the time though:

Man, AMD should of officially launched this at $550. 85-90% of the 980 Ti for $100 less with water-cooling would be much more enticing.

My god that is pretty bad for being the same price. The GRID 1080p test is holy shit bad.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Wow, HardOCP just savaged the Fury X. There was no holding back. Also, 4 GB of HBM already limiting in current games, look at how bad VRAM intensive games like GTAV and Dying Light did. Hold that L, AMD. You earned it after making people wait this long.

 

[FLAguy954]

My god that is pretty bad for being the same price. The GRID 1080p test is holy shit bad.

Yeah, like I said, drop the price to $550 and they have an instant winner as it would then occupy the same space as a 980 instead and it destroys the 980 handily.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Yeah, like I said, drop the price to $550 and they have an instant winner as it would then occupy the same space as a 980 instead and it destroys the 980 handily.

I think it also comes down to that it's supposed to be their flagship, yet it can't even top Nvidia's top two GPUs...

 

[RurouniZel]

I REALLY wanted the Fury X to be incredible, but it seems it's below the 980 ti.

*orders 980 ti*

 

[Sir Abacus]

Why did they call this an overclocker's dream?

It'll pull a bit more once voltage is unlocked. I don't know how long it'll be before that happens. But so far this has been a really textbook how not to launch a new flagship GPU.

 

[Journey]

Alatar from OCN posted a screen of Anantech's benches, looks really close with the 980 Ti winning the majority of the time though:

Man, AMD should of officially launched this at $550. 85-90% of the 980 Ti for $100 less with water-cooling would be much more enticing.

What the? from everything I read, the Fury X was doing a lot better at 4K, but it seems like Far Cry 4 and the Talos Principle are the only games with a clear advantage for Fury X if you want to run them at 4K. I don't know much about the Dunia 2 Engine, how does that fair against other modern engines? Are there any Unreal Engine 4 benches?

As much as I'm hoping this card will do better with future engines, the 980ti is looking better if you're looking to max out what's available now, except for Far Cry 4.

 

[mkenyon]

99th Percentile Frame Times are abysmal and puts it on par with the GTX 980. What an absolute travesty of a release.

RIP AMD.

 

[Gritesh]

Report back on if it worked and when they expect to ship them.

It went through expected to leave the warehouse later today my card has been charged done and done.


So I picked this card up for about 150 less than the 980ti through tiger direct I think it's a good buy at that price.

 

[Toski]

Wo Hold that L, AMD. You earned it after making people wait this long.

The only good thing for AMD in this case is actually working with HBM and bringing it to market. With AMD's lower R&D budget, they're going to need an architecture that will be able to compete against Pascal & Volta on the same node. I think GCN dies here.

 

[GatticusFinch]

AMD fucked this up so badly. My god. The only shot they had of taking down the 980 Ti was for this thing to overclock like mad, so they claim it's an "overclockers dream," and then ... lock the fucking voltage and release it as reference only?

Even if they unlock the voltage, the 980 Ti is crushing it at stock voltage OC. I'm dumbfounded. They claim that 4 GB is good enough, but put 8 GB on the 390X, and those are all just refreshes?

The only way AMD can salvage this is to start slashing prices immediately.

 

[Par Score]

I think it also comes down to that it's supposed to be their flagship, yet it can't even top Nvidia's top two GPUs...

Exactly. This needed to be a convincing win over the 980ti, not a scrappy loss.

It leaves AMD still lagging at least a step behind Nvidia, and already on the back foot.

 

[adamantypants]

And on this day, shit tons of 980tis were bought

 

[mkenyon]

Important benches:

More from TechReport here.

Speaking of which, if you dig deeper using our frame-time-focused performance metrics—or just flip over to the 99th-percentile scatter plot above—you'll find that the Fury X struggles to live up to its considerable potential. Unfortunate slowdowns in games like The Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 drag the Fury X's overall score below that of the less expensive GeForce GTX 980. What's important to note in this context is that these scores aren't just numbers. They mean that you'll generally experience smoother gameplay in 4K with a $499 GeForce GTX 980 than with a $649 Fury X. Our seat-of-the-pants impressions while play-testing confirm it. The good news is that we've seen AMD fix problems like these in the past with driver updates, and I don't doubt that's a possibility in this case. There's much work to be done, though.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Mildly interesting/amusing that it has 1 bit of memory width per shader, and 1MB of video memory per shader.

 

[Randam]

My only hope is that they unlock the voltage more. I think this card over clocked will outperform the 980ti. With that said, I'm sure the custom cards will do that too when they come out or if.

Core clock isn't locked.

The overclocked it for 65 Hz.
At + 75 Hz they already got graphics errors.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Core clock isn't locked.

The overclocked it for 65 Hz.
At + 75 Hz they already got graphics errors.

Graphical errors at stock voltage with effectively no thermal constraints need to have more voltage applied before you're at the true limit.

 

[Ziffles]

Yikes.

Does anyone have that depressing GPU market share graph handy?

 

[mkenyon]

Core clock isn't locked.

The overclocked it for 65 Hz.
At + 75 Hz they already got graphics errors.

Yeah, as noted by Sir Abacus, this is due to lack of voltage. From what I understand, they have undervolted the card to the bleeding limit to keep power consumption down. With unlocked voltage, we should see some very different numbers.

 

[Projectjustice]

So is the high speed memory they are using is a bust or what?

 

[cirrhosis]

Yikes.

Does anyone have that depressing GPU market share graph handy?

At this point if I posted it, it would just be a shitpost. I'll PM it to you.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

I thought AMD said these cards would be over locking beasts?

Why would they lock the voltage if that is indeed the case?

 

[Don Lapre]

So is the high speed memory they are using is a bust or what?

They are going to have to write in driver support for each game in order to not run out of memory it seems.

 

[mkenyon]

So is the high speed memory they are using is a bust or what?

TechReport saying it's absolutely due to crap drivers, which is more damning in a way than hardware that isn't up to snuff.

I thought AMD said these cards would be over locking beasts?

Why would they lock the voltage if that is indeed the case?

That's pretty typical for day 0 cards. Reviewers are dealing with a host of beta drivers that don't have all the features enabled.

 

[Prophet Steve]

So is the high speed memory they are using is a bust or what?

As far as I know it's fine. It just isn't the sole factor in GPU performance.

EDIT: Or it seems I am wrong, haven't been able to read too much yet.