Support NeoGAF

[Obliterator]

Seems to be a solid enough product, but I'm glad as hell i got my 980ti over this. The odds of me switching were incredibly low anyways but I was curious what AMD would cook up. 980ti seems to be the overall superior product though

 

[Skux]

Seems like you're paying for the new technology and smaller and cooler cards. It's really nice looking. But a lot of people just want raw power and NVIDIA has that right now.

 

[paskowitz]

Not regretting my EVGA 980 ti Hybrid purchase at all.

 

[deefol]

yikes

 

[DouglasteR]

Given the current resolutions of VR HMDs and how both 980Ti and Fury X perform at lower than 4k resolution, I think it's fair to assume we have a clear winner for VR. Whoever plans on getting a VR HMDs has to go for 980 Ti.

My case, entirely

 

[Galacticus]

Higher frame times are very worrying for VR. I know these benchmarks don't reflect LiquidVR...but...

 

[MGrant]

Disappointing couple of days for PC gaming. Arkham Knight PC is a mess, and AMD blows their chance to give Nvidia some real competition, which is sorely needed. When the 970, with its hobbled VRAM, and the 290X are almost matching your flagship card at 1440p, at $300 cheaper, it's just not a good look.

 

[dmr87]

Taking OC into consideration, the 980 Ti runs away with it. But still a good card, small and low temps.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

First wave product sold out, retailers already banging the prices up... fucking wankers.

 

[longdi]

Shocking and disappointing.

I think it would have used a plain air blower and sell for $599. Whats the use of slapping an expensive AIO if it overclocks like shite. I rather pay 5% more for a custom 980ti and overclock the hell outta it. It would convincingly smack furriesx on 1440/1600.

4k marketing is BS imo. Who wants to play 4k with high frame times and stuttering 30fps.

And wow at AMD straight out lying hyping about the OVERCLOCK potential of furriesx.

 

[Dictator93]

That comptuebase review is great. looking at the graph for 1440p or 1080p though paints a semi-grim picture.

Also, the amount of stutters in comparison to NV cards with more VRAM is pretty evident.

 

[Rafterman]

So you're angry at them for Nvidia's pricing scheme?

I'm not angry about anything. I fully expected this card to under deliver, I was just hoping it wouldn't and I could get a cheaper 980 Ti. As it is I'll still be getting the Ti, I'll just be paying more for it. Everyone likes spending less, which is why I said bummer.

 

[TheFatOne]

Looks like I'm waiting another year before I get a high end gpu. All that hype for a mediocre water cooled card that doesn't overclock well.

 

[digitalrelic]

Shocking and disappointing.

I think it would have used a plain air blower and sell for $599. Whats the use of slapping an expensive AIO if it overclocks like shite. I rather pay 5% more for a custom 980ti and overclock the hell outta it. It would convincingly smack furriesx on 1440/1600.

4k marketing is BS imo. Who wants to play 4k with high frame times and stuttering 30fps.

And wow at AMD straight out lying hyping about the OVERCLOCK potential of furriesx.

I may be mistaken, but isn't the normal Fury just a FuryX with an air cooler? For $549? If that's the case, that would be the route I'd take if I was going AMD.

 

[gigantor21]

Yeah, that's...disappointing. There are too many caveats surrounding the Fury X to call it a solid alternative to the 980Ti. AMD needed a slam dunk to finally break away from NVIDIA, and this isn't it.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I may be mistaken, but isn't the normal Fury just a FuryX with an air cooler? For $549? If that's the case, that would be the route I'd take if I was going AMD.

No it has fewer shader cores and TMUs and is clocked slower. Like the 290 is to the 290X.

 

[D-VoN]

Some mixed review so far (didn't bother with the non-english reviews) but it seems that the Fury X is stuck somewhere between a 980 and 980 ti. We're just waiting on benchmarks now.

 

[Mad Max]

God damnit AMD, you had one job. I expected it to at least be a tie with the 980ti at stock clocks, but it can't even manage that most of the time. If they want to sell this they should probably drop the price by about $50.

Looks like I'll just go with a 980ti instead, if I can ever get my hands on a good non-reference model.

 

[longdi]

I may be mistaken, but isn't the normal Fury just a FuryX with an air cooler? For $549? If that's the case, that would be the route I'd take if I was going AMD.

Nope it will be a castrated furriesx. Probably to compete against custom 980

 

[mrklaw]

seems odd to have water cooling, emphasise how much headroom it has, and then restrict how much you can overclock. Basically means instead of buying a GPU with lots of potential to push higher, you're just buying it for compactness and lower noise (assuming you get a quiet pump)

 

[digitalrelic]

Some mixed review so far (didn't bother with the non-english reviews) but it seems that the Fury X is stuck somewhere between a 980 and 980 ti. We're just waiting on benchmarks now.

Huh? There's literally been hundreds of benchmarks shared at this point.

 

[Smokey]

Sounds like an amazing card.

Nothing will ever stop people from throwing money at Nvidia, even after that Batman fiasco, though.

Because Nvidia are responsible for the incompetence of WB right?

Right.

 

[derFeef]

Starting at 730€ at alternate.de
https://www.alternate.de/html/listings/23563

 

[Gritesh]

Son of a bitch I cancelled my Asus freesync monitor order.

Guess I'll be going the 980ti as soon as my local gets the sc+ with backplate in stock.

Really wanted to get this card but for the money here in Canada its essentially the same price as the 980ti and I can't justify that when I don't get the performance for the money


However I needed a new monitor too and now that I think of it... The package price on a freesync and the fury x is about 250 dollars less than the 980ti and gsync monitor so essentially its quite cheaper... Hmmmm

 

[digitalrelic]

Nope it will be a castrated furriesx. Probably to compete against custom 980

Kind of sad. Also, you should probably stop with that 'furriesx' thing. It's embarrassing to read.

 

[Irobot82]

So things to look for next year. More ROPS from AMD, better rasterization per clock and better tesselation performance. It seems that most games take advantage of those more than the thins AMD was better at. It's a shame, I hope they can put some better clarification on this OC'ing. They said it would be a beast so it could be merely unlocked voltage or something.

Edit:

I wish they would have put in the R9 285 in those Tessmark results

See here:

The R9-285 is rocking 31888 and the 290x 18848.

With the latest drivers

The 290x is at 27530 an increase of 68%. If we assume that holds true for the 285 it would be at 53572. Much closer to Nvidia levels. So I'm confused is Fury GCN 1.1 or 1.2?

 

[Crisium]

Really, noise is where it's a winner. Any type of water on Nvidia will cost you a lot more. For raw performance it's not as good as a value as the 980 Ti right now. It's basically 95% of the performance for 100% of the cost of a stock 980 Ti. I'm still a month away from my new build, so we'll see if they cut the price or if the Fury non-x competes better. Buying a 95% as good product for the same price to send a message that I hate Gameworks may not be in my best interest, so I'll see how I feel next month... Team Green has pissed me off a lot though.

 

[paskowitz]

We need to see Fury X in Crossfire vs EVGA Titan X SC Hybrid (AIO water cooled model). Price is close.

 

[Sleeping Lesson]

Lot of disappointment in here, but it seems to me the card performs right in line with its pricing. Am I missing something? I suppose HDMI 2.0 would have been good, but will there not be aftermarket versions that could include it?

 

[Jaagen]

I guess my 7850 will stay in a year longer, unless Fury Nano gives a good bang for buck. If not, I'll just wait for 20nm and HBM2.

 

[tuxfool]

Because Nvidia are responsible for the incompetence of WB right?

Right.

By all accounts they should know how the game is panning out. They made a big deal of the fact that Nvidia Engineers were working alongside implementing gameworks features in the game.

maybe fewer gameworks features and a better performing engine instead?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/...is-seriously-broken-say-amd-and-nvidia-users/

 

[thuway]

I couldn't be more disappointed. Nvidia is probably laughing their asses off reading these reviews.

1. 980ti outperforms it, relased before it, has more features than it, and has the general reassurance of better performing Nvidia drivers.
2. Without HDMI 2.0 this is pretty much useless to any one with a 4K television and serious PC gaming ambitions. Congratulations AMD.
3. The cost/performance ratio is just not there and the water cooler model actually inhibits it from a lot of cases.

 

[tuxfool]

Lot of disappointment in here, but it seems to me the card performs right in line with its pricing. Am I missing something? I suppose HDMI 2.0 would have been good, but will there not be aftermarket versions that could include it?

I suspect that there was a lot of magical thinking in the expectation that AMD would under price and over deliver. Though there is some blame to be cast at the way the card was marketed.

 

[cleveridea]

Ouch this is really bad news even as nvidia owner (I have Titan X + 3D Vision monitor/card/emitter/glasses)

Monopolies are never good

And ouch at the 4K results.

I remember reading a eurogamer.net article where a dev said he could see a lot of value of 10GB of memory even if it was slow just for the caching benefit

Looking at these 4K benchmarks, its hard to see any advantage for AMD yet a potential huge disadvantage of being locked into just 4GB (VRAM size being more of an issue at that size)

 

[deadman69]

980ti is a whole £100 cheaper on dabs.com in the uk than this card.

 

[thelastword]

That comptuebase review is great. looking at the graph for 1440p or 1080p though paints a semi-grim picture.

Also, the amount of stutters in comparison to NV cards with more VRAM is pretty evident.

Here you go again pushing an angle, what stutters are you referring to exactly?

 

[cleveridea]

Seems to be a solid enough product, but I'm glad as hell i got my 980ti over this. The odds of me switching were incredibly low anyways but I was curious what AMD would cook up. 980ti seems to be the overall superior product though

Fury X is why you could buy basically a Titan X with such as big discount
NVidia clearly had accurate benchmarks for Fury X and a good idea on price. Spoiled AMD launch, and close enough they didnt lose much Titan X sales (since it was so close to actual launch/benchmarks)

If anything, after these reviews, I wonder if they think they slightly underpriced it (from their perspective)

 

[Seanspeed]

980ti is a whole £100 cheaper on dabs.com in the uk than this card.

MSI Fury X is actually £20 cheaper than any of the 980Ti's.

 

[Seanspeed]

Here you go again pushing an angle, what stutters are you referring to exactly?

Nobody is pushing an angle. Frametime tests show a less consistent performance than 980Ti at 4k.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/11/

 

[cleveridea]

Really, noise is where it's a winner. Any type of water on Nvidia will cost you a lot more. For raw performance it's not as good as a value as the 980 Ti right now. It's basically 95% of the performance for 100% of the cost of a stock 980 Ti. I'm still a month away from my new build, so we'll see if they cut the price or if the Fury non-x competes better. Buying a 95% as good product for the same price to send a message that I hate Gameworks may not be in my best interest, so I'll see how I feel next month... Team Green has pissed me off a lot though.

Issue though is - doesnt the noise only come up when using the 3D graphics like in games? ie not when using general computer use (browsing etc)

 

[thuway]

Fury X is why you could buy basically a Titan X with such as big discount
NVidia clearly had accurate benchmarks for Fury X and a good idea on price. Spoiled AMD launch, and close enough they didnt lose much Titan X sales (since it was so close to actual launch/benchmarks)

If anything, after these reviews, I wonder if they think they slightly underpriced it (from their perspective)

I doubt it. AMD has effectively become the "other" brand. In short, it's the alternative brand. I don't know why any one dropping such serious coin on GPUs would entertain the idea of the Fury X.

I know people will damage control and say it isn't a bad card- I agree. However, it does nothing to help AMD's current situation. They've developed an awful reputation for piss poor performance on day 1 titles (Arkham Knight, AC: Unity, GTA V) that people go out of their way to avoid purchasing their cards.

This card was supposed to have a healthy performance lead in front of the competing Nvidia cards AND be under priced. Instead it achieves none of that and positions itself as a boutique solution. Effectively endangering it to a niche product status.

Godspeed AMD. Drop the price, put HDMI 2.0 in, and get your drivers together.

 

[pulsemyne]

I couldn't be more disappointed. Nvidia is probably laughing their asses off reading these reviews.

1. 980ti outperforms it, relased before it, has more features than it, and has the general reassurance of better performing Nvidia drivers.
2. Without HDMI 2.0 this is pretty much useless to any one with a 4K television and serious PC gaming ambitions. Congratulations AMD.
3. The cost/performance ratio is just not there and the water cooler model actually inhibits it from a lot of cases.

You should not be using a 4k TV to play PC games on as the input lag is huge. Now 4k monitors is a different thing.
Also I think we should give AMD some time to sort it's drivers for the new card. Unlike Nvidia which already had a mature driver for the 980ti, AMD is having to deal with an all new chipset and that can take some time to optimise for.
All in all it's a very good card and the lack of HDMI 2.0 isn't a big thing. Display port is arguably better than it.

 

[Pagusas]

Its the same price as the 980ti, it has less features, it wont run things like Physx (at least on the gpu), has less memory and uses more energy...


How is this not a flop then? Why would you buy this card? I mean that seriously, unless you have a huge bias against nvidia, there is no reason to buy a Fury over a TI.

AMD had to hit hard and fast with this card given how late it was. Get better performance, smaller size, less energy and cheaper price. They only got one of those right, and it was the least important one.

 

[deadman69]

MSI Fury X is actually £20 cheaper than any of the 980Ti's.

missed that, why such a big difference in price between that and the amd branded one?

 

[Dictator93]

Here you go again pushing an angle, what stutters are you referring to exactly?

It isn't an angle, it is a way to... you know... look at the data presented by one of the best review sites out there.

 

[thuway]

You should not be using a 4k TV to play PC games on as the input lag is huge. Now 4k monitors is a different thing.
Also I think we should give AMD some time to sort it's drivers for the new card. Unlike Nvidia which already had a mature driver for the 980ti, AMD is having to deal with an all new chipset and that can take some time to optimise for.
All in all it's a very good card and the lack of HDMI 2.0 isn't a big thing. Display port is arguably better than it.

I don't own a 4k television just yet, but there is no way I wouldn't play on a 4k television irrespective of input lag. I'd deal with it. My PC is being fostered to replace my consoles in the living room.

 

[cleveridea]

So norrmally - how good are drivers at hardware launch?

I am wondering here if its just not a competitive card hardware wise or if drivers can improve things dramatically

For example, I dont know how AMD cores compare with Nvidia ones but in numbers its higher on Fury X than even Titan X (but those numbers are meaningless if the cores are different in terms of composition, which they most likely are)

So I would think some benches like compute would favor fury if hardware is more capable in some ways

Sounds like 4K is gonna be a big issue for the 4GB VRAM though

 

[Zalusithix]

Issue though is - doesnt the noise only come up when using the 3D graphics like in games? ie not when using general computer use (browsing etc)

Yes, the Fury X is only quieter under load. If you're comparing idle noise levels, the 980ti will end up lower.

 

[derFeef]

I'm in need for a new card. I will wait a few weeks so hopefully they can sort out the frametimes and OC issues (or clarify on it). Often drivers improve new cards sigificantly over time, but I question AMD for not having good drivers ready already.

 

[paskowitz]

You should not be using a 4k TV to play PC games on as the input lag is huge. Now 4k monitors is a different thing.
Also I think we should give AMD some time to sort it's drivers for the new card. Unlike Nvidia which already had a mature driver for the 980ti, AMD is having to deal with an all new chipset and that can take some time to optimise for.
All in all it's a very good card and the lack of HDMI 2.0 isn't a big thing. Display port is arguably better than it.

Um, I would still like to use my new 4K TV to its fullest, to enjoy 4K gaming, on my "4K gpu". 4K TVs are far more prevalent than 4K monitors. Sone of us want to enjoy some single player controller gaming on the sofa.