AMD Fury X Reviews

[Face2Face]

Even if Fury overclocks to 1250-1300MHz with voltage, it's still not going to beat an overclocked GTX 980Ti 1450-1500Mhz custom card, and it will draw a ton more power while trying to.

I'm sad to say that AMD hyped this launch way too much, and now the only real benefit of HBM is lower power consumption. The amount of memory bandwidth that HBM provides is simply not needed with today's games, and even when games/resolutions start too require this much bandwidth, 4GB of VRAM is not going to cut it. I hope that future drivers improve upon Fury, like they have with previous GCN based flagships.

 

[Piroko]

It's generally not good to pick one review that has a different result and use that to say something definite.

Typically if one reviewer has a different result from the rest, it is suspect?

Might have been worded poorly by me, the first sentence was me being sceptical. However, the second sentence should hold true regardless - unless Toms had measurement errors introduced by their equipment.

 

[bryanW1995]

So far, it looks like we have a tie with the 980ti.

Yep. Computerbase has Furyx ahead by 1%, TPU has 980ti ahead by ~ 3%, others are mostly in that range for 1440 and 4k. Nice job by AMD, this is a good launch and far ahead of what I was expecting a few weeks ago, but it's not good enough to make NV lower their prices. I think that we can all look forward to $500 gtx980 and $430 3900x for the rest of the year...

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep. Computerbase has Furyx ahead by 1%, TPU has 980ti ahead by ~ 3%, others are mostly in that range for 1440 and 4k. Nice job by AMD, this is a good launch and far ahead of what I was expecting a few weeks ago, but it's not good enough to make NV lower their prices. I think that we can all look forward to $500 gtx980 and $430 3900x for the rest of the year...

I don't think it was a good launch, though.

Hype and expectations were very high, largely due to AMD.

Not really living up to what was being said.

 

[Mako88]

Well now I don't feel so bad about AMD neglecting to include HDMI 2.0 on the FX, which I need for my Samsung 4k display, thus forcing me to go 980 Ti SLI.

None of the reviews compared an overclocked 980 Ti (all of which can add +200 to +300MHz easily on air without voltage) to an overclocked Fury X (all of which so far can't exceed more than +100MHz).

If they had, the disparity between the two would be large, in some cases (GTA V, BF4, etc) over 15fps difference between the two, with the 980 Ti outperforming the FX by that wide margin @ 4k.

As it is, both The Tech Report and HardOCP feel negatively (disappointed) by the Fury X, because it could have been so much more.

It does seem like the best value though will be the Fury X that runs on air, because the card's overclocking is so awful that the AIO hybrid cooler doesn't seem justified/warranted.

I bet the air version of the Fury X at $549 will be a hot seller, that would be my target in crossfire. $1100 total for a dual-card system that crushed even an overclocked Titan X single by a wide margin? Yessir, sign me up.

Regardless, a good first step by AMD. They now need to rush the 6/8GB version to market, with a slightly uprated base clock, at the same pricing. Pascal is far far away, don't believe the Nvidia hype on that, more than 12 months at this point easily. Perfect for AMD to do a refreshed Fury X that actually delivers on the promises.

 

[monstercameron]

I don't think it was a good launch, though.

Hype and expectations were very high, largely due to AMD.

Not really living up to what was being said.

a good amd launch is one where the only meme that can come out of it is that a similarly priced card can only definitively outperform amds latest and greatest by overclocking, which leads to heat and noise. Compared to amd that runs cool and quiet.
That might be the best they can do with the current state of the industry.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I bet the air version of the Fury X at $549 will be a hot seller, that would be my target in crossfire. $1100 total for a dual-card system that crushed even an overclocked Titan X single by a wide margin? Yessir, sign me up.

A few things to remember.

Without water cooling, the power consumption will increase. Temperatures will be higher. And the version will be a cut down model. All these things sets a limit of their own. At 550$ I dont see it sell well at all.

 

[exar333]

A few things to remember.

Without water cooling, the power consumption will increase. Temperatures will be higher. And the version will be a cut down model. All these things sets a limit of their own. At 550$ I dont see it sell well at all.

Yeah, I think both the X and the Pro will see some price reductions by end of summer. Maybe $100 each?

 

[monstercameron]

Yeah, I think both the X and the Pro will see some price reductions by end of summer. Maybe $100 each?

amd just bumped up the pricing on the 200 to 300 series, I doubt they will drop prices eagerly in the future like they did with the 200 series.

 

[Azix]

Even if Fury overclocks to 1250-1300MHz with voltage, it's still not going to beat an overclocked GTX 980Ti 1450-1500Mhz custom card, and it will draw a ton more power while trying to.

I'm sad to say that AMD hyped this launch way too much, and now the only real benefit of HBM is lower power consumption. The amount of memory bandwidth that HBM provides is simply not needed with today's games, and even when games/resolutions start too require this much bandwidth, 4GB of VRAM is not going to cut it. I hope that future drivers improve upon Fury, like they have with previous GCN based flagships.

The Gigabyte 980Ti gets close to or over 300W while gaming, for example. Toms shows the Fury X at under 230W iirc during gaming. and lower than a stock 980ti. I don't see why it HAS To be much worse while overclocked. Really depends on the voltage needed.

According to Tomshardware this card is more efficient than or about as efficient as a 980Ti

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah, I think both the X and the Pro will see some price reductions by end of summer. Maybe $100 each?

It will be very hard to reduce the X price further. 650$ wasnt what they wanted to sell to in the first place. I would rather guess that the X version simply gets discontinued instead of a price cut.

 

[exar333]

amd just bumped up the pricing on the 200 to 300 series, I doubt they will drop prices eagerly in the future like they did with the 200 series.

I definitely agree. I don't think any further price adjustments will be stomached well. But after the initial batch sells, will the current prices still drive sales enough? I am not so sure.

 

[Illyan]

again i feel like this launch is almost an exact replay of the 6970 launch, hyped up to be a 480 killer and AMD's all-out going for the crown card, only to have the 580 come out and it just be ~10% under nvidia's high end again.

 

[Illyan]

usually AMD's follow up generation to high-end missteps are great though, 2900xt -> 4870, 6970 -> 7970 etc, so hopefully the Fury 2 or 490x or whatever will amaze

 

[AtenRa]

again i feel like this launch is almost an exact replay of the 6970 launch, hyped up to be a 480 killer and AMD's all-out going for the crown card, only to have the 580 come out and it just be ~10% under nvidia's high end again.

Well, 6970 was smaller than 580 and AMD didnt have HBM, Im telling you Fury-X release is worse. Im sure they knew Fury X would be behind GTX980Ti and TITAN-X, they had to release the card with beta drivers right after the Titan-X or wait for Win 10 release in July.

 

[LTC8K6]

A few things to remember.

Without water cooling, the power consumption will increase. Temperatures will be higher. And the version will be a cut down model. All these things sets a limit of their own. At 550$ I dont see it sell well at all.

I'm beginning to think that Fury X is water cooled because it's too difficult to air cool it?

Otherwise, why not have an air cooled version minus the water cooling cost?

 

[AtenRa]

I'm beginning to think that Fury X is water cooled because it's too difficult to air cool it?

Otherwise, why not have an air cooled version minus the water cooling cost?

You cannot have an AIR cooler to fit in such a small pcb and dissipate 275W TDP, unless it would be 2x times as thick as triple-slot coolers.

 

[krumme]

Yep. Computerbase has Furyx ahead by 1%, TPU has 980ti ahead by ~ 3%, others are mostly in that range for 1440 and 4k. Nice job by AMD, this is a good launch and far ahead of what I was expecting a few weeks ago, but it's not good enough to make NV lower their prices. I think that we can all look forward to $500 gtx980 and $430 3900x for the rest of the year...

Dont say that. They have to sell cards = lower prices. Fury is competition that does that. Amd is forced to lower prices.
Be more optimistic !
Nano at 350 980 at 280 970 at 230.
Its all midrange ! Yeaaa

 

[monstercameron]

I definitely agree. I don't think any further price adjustments will be stomached well. But after the initial batch sells, will the current prices still drive sales enough? I am not so sure.

it isn't unreasonably priced so I expect it to sell well, as much as a niche card can I suppose.

look at what the regulars think about gfx cards in the comments. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/24/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

also this maybe abit tinfoil hat but maybe amd opted for aggressive power savings and cooling to shed the too hot/too loud image, then maybe later introduce overclocking.

 

[Jaydip]

Seriously what is going on with AT now a days.Oh he is sick, sorry missed that, get well soon Ryan

 

[.vodka]

The problem is fitting that small PCB to a 290x/980Ti open air triple fan cooler, it's not going to be good for the PCB to support such weight. I suppose aircooled Fiji will have a long PCB with lots of empty space to support the cooler's weight.

I mean, if the nano concept card is anything to go by, Fiji by itself doesn't require too much cooling, at least to exceed 290x performance as claimed in the slides while consuming much less. When highly clocked and overvolted well, it could be another story... this is what the AIO is for... and huge air coolers as I've mentioned above. Yeah, 50°C load vs 70-80°C has its effects on power consumption, but still.

We'll see.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The Gigabyte 980Ti gets close to or over 300W while gaming, for example. Toms shows the Fury X at under 230W iirc during gaming. and lower than a stock 980ti. I don't see why it HAS To be much worse while overclocked. Really depends on the voltage needed.

According to Tomshardware this card is more efficient than or about as efficient as a 980Ti

But that will be because of HBM, not the GPU itself right?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm beginning to think that Fury X is water cooled because it's too difficult to air cool it?

Otherwise, why not have an air cooled version minus the water cooling cost?

Water cooling is a neat little trick to lower power consumption. I dont think its a problem to air cool it. But without water this would be way over 300W and run into another problem. So its obvious why its water. And its not to make a small fancy card.

 

[n0x1ous]

Seriously what is going on with AT now a days.Oh he is sick, sorry missed that, get well soon Ryan

It was nice when Ryan was just the GPU guy. He now has way more responsibility as the EIC and the timeliness of GPU launch reviews has suffered in accordance with Anand's departure.

The AT review is the one I look forward to reading the most and it's the only one I don't get to read today.

 

[exar333]

it isn't unreasonably priced so I expect it to sell well, as much as a niche card can I suppose.

look at what the regulars think about gfx cards in the comments.

also this maybe abit tinfoil hat but maybe amd opted for aggressive power savings and cooling to shed the too hot/too loud image, then maybe later introduce overclocking.

Agree.

What worries me is that 290/290x were AGGRESSIVELY priced and didn't sell particularly well. These cards are 2x those. I guess we will see.

I am debating on getting 2x Fury X + CPU in CLC for a SFF build or waiting for Fury X2 and seeing what footprint that cooler is (120mm still like 295x2?) If the latter, I might go there and accept the lack of OC headroom, but appreciate the extra space inside and on fan slots.

This would be a VR build/portable gaming SFF build.