AMD Fury X Reviews

[LTC8K6]

It would have been declared the second coming if it launched at $399.

Few other AMD cards would sell at all if Fury X was $399.00
(Well, likely there aren't enough cards to go around already)

Then you'd have to place the other Fury models at lower prices.

Who would buy 390X and below if the Fury line tops out at $399?

 

[Azix]

But the regular Fury (priced at $550) will be a cut-down version of the Fury X without the water cooler. It should be priced less. In fact, based on what we know of the Fury X, it should be priced lower than $550. The Fury X should be $550 and the cut-down Fury should be at $479. Those are competitive pricing. It would turn heads. It wouldn't be a disappointment. At $650, it is a disappointment.

Fury X can be $600. It's new architecture, new VRAM with no new drivers for it yet AFAIK. The current results are not representative and it can't exactly get worse from here. Only better.

Personally I think it should be $300 so I can buy it. Worst case $400, but if someone was trying to be sane it can be $600 and probably should for the sake of profit. On the other hand, if AMD is going to use most chips for the cheaper nano and Fury stock I doubt they will have issues selling out at $650. By the time they are making a ton more maybe the perf will be there. Nano and Fury should be over 980 and more competitively priced so those will sell well.


Reviews should use a representative sample. Different tech etc. There should be a cryengine game, frostbite etc etc. As many engines (even varieties of execution on said engines.) I would say unreal engine, but IMO only unreal 4 would be worth. never liked unreal and with the recent batman you can see it's inferior to other engines especially at open world.

If you need something to differentiate your reviews without the highest playable settings, do an engine based review instead. If you really want points you can tackle gameworks games separately and the implications for PC gaming. If you do intend to keep going this route on [H] I hope you include future AMD games. Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Battlefront etc. Though "AMD game" really just means it runs well and can be freely optimized, but at least GW won't be screwing the results. if you don't replace your lineup then, pitchforks bruh.

On that note, I would like to say I have no intention of buying a new nvidia card till they stop trying to kill PC gaming. Can't be buying people a gun to shoot me with. I'd ask you all to do the same, but we a lame bunch.

 

[LTC8K6]

Love such comments.
furyx crushed titan x with 20% in civ beyond earth at 4k.
you need to buy a fury x now m8

What about against the overclocked Ti or Titan X?

 

[ctk1981]

I think if the price would come down a little bit more people would jump. I pretty much have my 290X sold already so I think I'm in. 1440p on a 290X is a little dicey at times. I like the AIO cooler also so for me its a good deal.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Good price, or low supply?

I couldnt find any in europe with stock. And most specify july as delievering dates (2nd and 6th).

 

[guskline]

Maybe, but as an AMD user, this product doesn't even entice me to upgrade.

I'll wait it out for real next-gen stuff.

I'm with you. If anything, I'd buy 2 GTX980TIs like moonbogg and custom watercool them.:biggrin:

 

[utahraptor]

I imagine they will come down. The strategy was probably to price the 30K units they have for $649 because they knew those few would sell out. This makes the launch look better on paper to investors. They can say we sold out our initial run at the price we chose. If they manage to get more units next year or whenever they will probably have to lower the price.

 

[Udgnim]

My latest purchases were several very enjoyable telltale games. My GPU was running at idle speed.

I play Tales from the Borderlands at VSR 3800 by 1800 just because it's there

 

[krumme]

These are new and popular games people play. I'm sorry you have an issue with using games people are actually playing today.

Perhaps you should speak to the game developer for their use and choice of 3D features in their own games?

We will continue to use new game releases, popular game releases, and games people are actually playing on the PC. We are open minded and do not cherry pick our games based on who has sponsored a game. That thought never enters our mind in the decision to use a game. I don't care what 3d features are in it, as long as there are 3d features that push gaming forward on the PC.

Brent. I undertand what you are saying. But what about speaking to devs yourself?
Do you think they will say its good for the games or do they do it for money?
Its quite obvious what its about.
Its mostly like over tessellated crap without benefits for gamers whatever brand you use.
Silverforce speak up as a gamer. I think the devs can hear him.
What do you do?

 

[blastingcap]

You seem to be reading everything I write in the most personal and negative manner possible. Chill out. I'd think it's obvious that I am not saying you were personally recommending anything, the "you" referred to people in general. What I did say was that your argument that Steam/etc. sales proved anything, did not make much sense to me. I do think that people who buy $650 cards do buy AAA titles as they come out.

If I were you, I'd be very careful about complaining to the mods, considering that YOU were the one who said I was "confused" "as usual." That is a personal attack. In contrast, I just pointed out inconsistencies in your logic.

Don't even bother responding if you have not read the entire thread from start to finish. It makes it look like you are either trolling or specifically seeking to argue with members on our forum. If you continue doing so, I will report it as trolling to the mods.

 

[Azix]

I imagine they will come down. The strategy was probably to price the 30K units they have for $649 because they knew those few would sell out. This makes the launch look better on paper to investors. They can say we sold out our initial run at the price we chose. If they manage to get more units next year or whenever they will probably have to lower the price.

I'd say max when Fury comes out. Worst case when nano comes out. Selling a limited stock early on though might make sense.

Fury X price likely won't change. Since its the norm to benchmark new games now, if they show better performance with updates, they will see better sales. The Bios on those later batches could very well change things even without drivers being updated. I thought it would be hard to change first impressions, but given how often game benchmark threads are started here, they actually could.

 

[Jaydip]

Now that we have seen the reviews I think it is time to do some introspection.I believe AMD promised superior performance/watt but it seems it's power draw is more or less similar to 980Ti while being slower, what happened here?

 

[RussianSensation]

vs.

980Ti = 87%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 100% or 15% faster (1.15x)

If Fury X = 100%
GTX980Ti = 109%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 109% x (100%/87%) = 125%

$40 more for 25% higher factory-warrantied performance at 1440P, 50% more VRAM as a bonus. Even if Fury X was $549, I don't think I would buy it over the after-market 980Ti.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now that we have seen the reviews I think it is time to do some introspection.I believe AMD promised superior performance/watt but it seems it's power draw is more or less similar to 980Ti while being slower, what happened here?

Didn't they compare to previous AMD cards?

 

[beginner99]

Results are all over the place depending on game. Mostly it's disappointing. However no one yet mentioned that Fury X demolishes the competition in Civ 5. So if you play Civ 5 mainly, it's for sure the card to get. Yeah, GCN fares well in Civ due to compute. That might also be why it will age much better than 980TI especially when dx12 titles hit (unless all of them are crippled by GW).

Else a bit disappointing. Won't buy. And let's me wonder were Fury and Nano will land. At this point sounds like a used 290(x) is best bet for me and wait till 14 nm.

 

[DownTheSky]

I'd say max when Fury comes out. Worst case when nano comes out. Selling a limited stock early on though might make sense.

Fury X price likely won't change. Since its the norm to benchmark new games now, if they show better performance with updates, they will see better sales. The Bios on those later batches could very well change things even without drivers being updated. I thought it would be hard to change first impressions, but given how often game benchmark threads are started here, they actually could.

That card is bottlenecked somewhere. Seems to be the ROPs. Based on specs alone, it should be faster than this.

 

[Jaydip]

Didn't they compare to previous AMD cards?

I don't think Fury is really competing with 290x :biggrin:

 

[blastingcap]

Now that we have seen the reviews I think it is time to do some introspection.I believe AMD promised superior performance/watt but it seems it's power draw is more or less similar to 980Ti while being slower, what happened here?

AMD promised higher perf/watt compared to its previous generation, not compared to NV necessarily. I think the spec was something like 1.5x perf/watt compared to 290X. The presumably cut-down and underclocked/volted Nano they claim has 2x perf/watt of 290X.

 

[Jaydip]

AMD promised higher perf/watt compared to its previous generation, not compared to NV necessarily. I think the spec was something like 1.5x perf/watt compared to 290X. The presumably cut-down and underclocked/volted Nano they claim has 2x perf/watt of 290X.

But it is stupid, Fury is not competing with 290X.

 

[n0x1ous]

I think if the price would come down a little bit more people would jump. I pretty much have my 290X sold already so I think I'm in. 1440p on a 290X is a little dicey at times. I like the AIO cooler also so for me its a good deal.

Can i ask how you plan to connect the Fury X to your Catleap?

 

[blastingcap]

But it is stupid, Fury is not competing with 290X.

Actually it's pretty common to compare new products vs your old products to show progress made. NV does it all the time comparing Tesla vs Fermi vs Kepler etc.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think Fury is really competing with 290x :biggrin:

IIRC, "higher performance per watt" was referring to AMD cards, not the 980ti?

 

[Udgnim]

Now that we have seen the reviews I think it is time to do some introspection.I believe AMD promised superior performance/watt but it seems it's power draw is more or less similar to 980Ti while being slower, what happened here?

their comment was that Fury X would be up to 1.5X performance / watt over 290x & Nano would be up to 2.0X performance / watt over 290x

using TechPowerUp's charts

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/32.html

@ 1080, it's 1.33
@ 1440, it's 1.39
@ 4K, it's 1.43

 

[krumme]

If we started picking games because they don't have GW features then we really would be biased wouldn't we

I'm not going down that road. I'm just going to continue to play new and popular games, like normal people, and have a good time with the PC gaming experience.

Get real Brent. You are not foremost a gamer. You are in a business.
What you are enforcing is crapworks instead of nv inventing the new mantle or the next mobile gpu. Thats a consequence. We get crap instead of true innovations.
I like your testing method. But its a shortsighted approach you use now. And its goin to hurt us all except only nv shareholders. Stupid.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Love such comments.
furyx crushed titan x with 20% in civ beyond earth at 4k.
you need to buy a fury x now m8

And from reviews I've read, there aren't many places where it bests the Titan, let alone the 980ti. I see no reason to go for the Fury. I don't want water, and I have a hard time investing in 4GB over 6GB for longevity reasons. If the Fury X blew the Titan and TI out of the water, I'd have a harder decision...but this decision is really simple to me.