AMD Fury X Reviews

[Piroko]

I have never heard of pump noise issues in closed loop solutions. I never noticed my CPU cooler making that kind of noise. Could it be the fact that they dont have it in a case?

The issue with high frequency whine is that it travels ridiculously good through cases :|
And yes, I haven't heard anything like this either, it is very likely a production issue of that charge of pumps. This (starting at 0:35) is in a rather noisy room and yet you should be able to hear it.

 

[3DVagabond]

hardocp has the most inconsistent testing methodology. Their definition of playable settings changes from review to review and depending on their mood. In certain reviews when they want to show a particular card in favourable light they chose certain settings and call it playable. In another review the same card is told to be not playable at the same settings. At times they have said Watchdogs required 3 GB at 1080p and 4GB at 1440p for Ultra settings and when reviewing GTX 960 2GB, the same Watchdogs is told as playable at Ultra settings at 1080p with 2GB VRAM. Thats inconsistency and hypocrisy at its best.

hardocp also has the worst game suite loaded with Gameworks titles and do not have a clue that it skews their results horribly. Other like hwc do a good job maintaining a broader testing suite with neutral titles and AMD Gaming Evolved titles. In fact hardocp justify it by saying they test the games which everybody is playing and do not bother which GPU vendor is associated with those titles. What rubbish. As if everybody plays only the 4-5 games which they test and the rest of the games are not played at all. Also at times they are overly sensationalist in their reviews like they have been with Fury X. hardocp also was one of the few sites which showed GTX 960 significantly better than R9 285 and on par with R9 280X while other sites showed R9 285 on par with GTX 960 and R9 280X much faster than GTX 960. All these were due to their test suite being completely favorable to Nvidia as it included mainly Gameworks titles. Their current suite consists of BF4 - AMD GE, GTA V - neutral and Witcher 3, Farcry 4 and Dying Light all of which are Gameworks titles. btw they specifically test Gameworks features which are badly implemented and a waste of GPU resources like Hairworks. Anyway trying to say hardocp is the best site for GPU reviews is the worst thing a person can say. They are so utterly clueless that Gameworks is specifically designed to cripple the competition even at the cost of hurting Nvidia's previous gen cards like kepler. As always you have people defending them because they have an extremely Nvidia favourable view with this entire Maxwell generation.

[H]'s methods have revealed a lot about the functionality of cards. They just don't seem to analyze their results too well.

If you ever see [H] change their software suite to not favor nVidia it'll be when they review an AMD model from Asus.

 

[Jaydip]

hardocp has the most inconsistent testing methodology. Their definition of playable settings changes from review to review and depending on their mood. In certain reviews when they want to show a particular card in favourable light they chose certain settings and call it playable. In another review the same card is told to be not playable at the same settings. At times they have said Watchdogs required 3 GB at 1080p and 4GB at 1440p for Ultra settings and when reviewing GTX 960 2GB, the same Watchdogs is told as playable at Ultra settings at 1080p with 2GB VRAM. Thats inconsistency and hypocrisy at its best.

hardocp also has the worst game suite loaded with Gameworks titles and do not have a clue that it skews their results horribly. Other like hwc do a good job maintaining a broader testing suite with neutral titles and AMD Gaming Evolved titles. In fact hardocp justify it by saying they test the games which everybody is playing and do not bother which GPU vendor is associated with those titles. What rubbish. As if everybody plays only the 4-5 games which they test and the rest of the games are not played at all. Also at times they are overly sensationalist in their reviews like they have been with Fury X. hardocp also was one of the few sites which showed GTX 960 significantly better than R9 285 and on par with R9 280X while other sites showed R9 285 on par with GTX 960 and R9 280X much faster than GTX 960. All these were due to their test suite being completely favorable to Nvidia as it included mainly Gameworks titles. Their current suite consists of BF4 - AMD GE, GTA V - neutral and Witcher 3, Farcry 4 and Dying Light all of which are Gameworks titles. btw they specifically test Gameworks features which are badly implemented and a waste of GPU resources like Hairworks. Anyway trying to say hardocp is the best site for GPU reviews is the worst thing a person can say. They are so utterly clueless that Gameworks is specifically designed to cripple the competition even at the cost of hurting Nvidia's previous gen cards like kepler. As always you have people defending them because they have an extremely Nvidia favourable view with this entire Maxwell generation.

What a load of BS, lets see

1. You have quoted them quite a few times earlier, what happened now? can't see the results you want to see?

2. Hwc that's hilarious lol, you wanna find me your post where you said they are NV shills?

3. They have Apple to Apple for a reason.

4. Funny you mention these two tiles Witcher 3, Farcry 4, in AMD's reviewer's guide Fury was shown to be faster than 980Ti in these two games, so apparently AMD gave them the thumbs up lol.


If the best gpu demanding games of a year are all GW you have to test them period, otherwise it is you who is being biased. [H] don't pick a side they [redacted] on all.


Profanity isn't allowed in VC&G

-Elfear

 

[raghu78]

What a load of BS, lets see

1. You have quoted them quite a few times earlier, what happened now? can't see the results you want to see?

I have pointed out their inconsistency right to them and they did not even have a reply. All they did was make up for it in forthcoming reviews. This happened when they claimed GTX 960 was on par with R9 280X at 1440p Ultra settings with Ultra textures.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041391031&postcount=2
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041392283&postcount=23

pcgameshardware showed what happened to 2GB cards with max settings in Watchdogs at even 1080p(when Ultra settings with Ultra textures where used) . All 2GB cards just tanked.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Specials/Test-Review-1148357/2/

So yes they are not the awesome site which you think they are. Actually I figure they have pretty much decided their review conclusion even before they start testing the cards and cook up charts to fit their agenda.

2. Hwc that's hilarious lol, you wanna find me your post where you said they are NV shills?

I believe they keep shilling for whoever they feel like doing or want to. :awe:

3. They have Apple to Apple for a reason.

Again manipulated to suit their agenda. The GTX 960 case was a classic example where R9 280X murders the GTX 960 in Watchdogs according to multiple reviews at 1440p especially at Ultra textures as even 3GB cards like GTX 780 Ti run out of VRAM. Heck their own previous reviews showed 780 Ti running out of VRAM and now these guys were saying GTX 960 2GB is on par with R9 280X 3GB. :biggrin:

4. Funny you mention these two tiles Witcher 3, Farcry 4, in AMD's reviewer's guide Fury was shown to be faster than 980Ti in these two games, so apparently AMD gave them the thumbs up lol.

Other sites too bench with Witcher 3 and Farcry 4. But they choose to turn off Gimpworks specific features like Hairworks which use excessive levels of tesselation to achieve an visual effect which can easily be achieved at much lower levels and with not as much of a hit to performance. Thats exactly what AMD recommended to their users to enable tesselation control through AMD CCC and run at 8x or 16x and get better performance than Nvidia users for no perceivable loss of quality.

If the best gpu demanding games of a year are all GW you have to test them period, otherwise it is you who is being biased. [H] don't pick a side they [redacted] on all.

Right now they are a clueless bunch of guys who don't know or pretend to not know or even not bother what Gameworks is doing and the damage its causing not just to AMD users but also Nvidia users of Kepler generation.

 

[3DVagabond]

Listen, there is no definitive review site. You need to read multiple sites and [H] is definitely one of the must reads. Where you run into trouble is when people use one instance from one review to try and define a product. Or a single product to define all brands and models.

Don't be lazy and read multiple reviews if you are going to form an opinion that you are going to indoctrinate others with.

 

[ocre]

Listen, there is no definitive review site. You need to read multiple sites and [H] is definitely one of the must reads. Where you run into trouble is when people use one instance from one review to try and define a product. Or a single product to define all brands and models.

Don't be lazy and read multiple reviews if you are going to form an opinion that you are going to indoctrinate others with.

Absolutely!!

What you said

 

[ocre]

I have pointed out their inconsistency right to them and they did not even have a reply. All they did was make up for it in forthcoming reviews. This happened when they claimed GTX 960 was on par with R9 280X at 1440p Ultra settings with Ultra textures.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041391031&postcount=2
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041392283&postcount=23

pcgameshardware showed what happened to 2GB cards with max settings in Watchdogs at even 1080p(when Ultra settings with Ultra textures where used) . All 2GB cards just tanked.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Specials/Test-Review-1148357/2/

So yes they are not the awesome site which you think they are. Actually I figure they have pretty much decided their review conclusion even before they start testing the cards and cook up charts to fit their agenda.

I believe they keep shilling for whoever they feel like doing or want to. :awe:

Again manipulated to suit their agenda. The GTX 960 case was a classic example where R9 280X murders the GTX 960 in Watchdogs according to multiple reviews at 1440p especially at Ultra textures as even 3GB cards like GTX 780 Ti run out of VRAM. Heck their own previous reviews showed 780 Ti running out of VRAM and now these guys were saying GTX 960 2GB is on par with R9 280X 3GB. :biggrin:

Other sites too bench with Witcher 3 and Farcry 4. But they choose to turn off Gimpworks specific features like Hairworks which use excessive levels of tesselation to achieve an visual effect which can easily be achieved at much lower levels and with not as much of a hit to performance. Thats exactly what AMD recommended to their users to enable tesselation control through AMD CCC and run at 8x or 16x and get better performance than Nvidia users for no perceivable loss of quality.

Right now they are a clueless bunch of guys who don't know or pretend to not know or even not bother what Gameworks is doing and the damage its causing not just to AMD users but also Nvidia users of Kepler generation.

So basically you are saying that their 960 results are just made up? All the charts and data? What else could you be saying?

So why are you then proposing they used "gimpworks" in witcher? They just make up their numbers, out of thin air. No need to use gamework features, they just make up the numbers. Why are you still looking at their reviews again?

I have no idea and cannot say, but is there no chance that watchdogs improved with patches over time? You seem to not realize the time frame between watchdogs launch and the 960 launch. The game had some performance issues and there were patches intended to resolve a lot of those issues. The fact it needed and got patches is common knowledge.

You are insisting that there is no way that the 960 performed as they said it did. I think that you insisting their results are fabrication, bold claims like that, i would hope you arent just making stuff up yourself. Your own credibility at stake here.

You made some really bold projections (practically insisting) that the 300 series and fiji would be worlds different than they turned out. You constantly claimed fiji would be 20% over the titanX/980ti and that their next chip in line (Grenada) would be 20% faster than the 980 while using the same or less power. You also said that there would be HBM on chips below fiji.

Now, everyone has the right to speculate, that is fine and all. But you were fairly certain and even when confronted you never budged. Even when many signs started pointing to a very different scenario, you stuck with those astronomical and extremely unlikely figures. So, to me it is clear that you have a very active and powerful imagination. There is nothing wrong with that in particular, i just think you should be aware and not let such an imagination overshadow your reason.

EDIT:
After looking for that review you were talking about, it appears in your distaste you neglected to realize that the H review was using an MSI gaming 960. This is a factory OC model by the way (which they 100% identify it as). Also, your claim that other reviews show the 960 being murdered by the 280x in watchdogs..........well funny that, cause the first review i found using a 960 in watchdogs (other than H) tells a different story. See, even at 2560x1600.......it is not far behind the 280x.
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_960,7.html

Considering that 2560 x 1440 is less pixels than 2560x1600, added to the fact that they are both tied at 1080, and H even shows a slight advantage for the 280x at 1440p. Things dont seem out of line at all. See, legion shows a mere 2fps advantage for the 280x at 1600p.

In all actuality, the H results seem to line up really really well here. Which is quite shocking considering these are two different sites using different computers and different cards.
Apparently, you didnt really even look into this at all. Just let you imagination go wild.

Here is the H review for anyone who wants to cross check with real facts
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gaming_high_resolution_review/5#.VY_NA0YhSUk

 

[raghu78]

^snip

lets not take thread off topic. I have replied to you on PM. Anyway I have provided enough proof of their inconsistency. How you want to interpret it is upto you :whiste:

 

[Jaydip]

I have pointed out their inconsistency right to them and they did not even have a reply. All they did was make up for it in forthcoming reviews. This happened when they claimed GTX 960 was on par with R9 280X at 1440p Ultra settings with Ultra textures.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041391031&postcount=2
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041392283&postcount=23

pcgameshardware showed what happened to 2GB cards with max settings in Watchdogs at even 1080p(when Ultra settings with Ultra textures where used) . All 2GB cards just tanked.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Specials/Test-Review-1148357/2/

So yes they are not the awesome site which you think they are. Actually I figure they have pretty much decided their review conclusion even before they start testing the cards and cook up charts to fit their agenda.

I believe they keep shilling for whoever they feel like doing or want to. :awe:

Again manipulated to suit their agenda. The GTX 960 case was a classic example where R9 280X murders the GTX 960 in Watchdogs according to multiple reviews at 1440p especially at Ultra textures as even 3GB cards like GTX 780 Ti run out of VRAM. Heck their own previous reviews showed 780 Ti running out of VRAM and now these guys were saying GTX 960 2GB is on par with R9 280X 3GB. :biggrin:

Other sites too bench with Witcher 3 and Farcry 4. But they choose to turn off Gimpworks specific features like Hairworks which use excessive levels of tesselation to achieve an visual effect which can easily be achieved at much lower levels and with not as much of a hit to performance. Thats exactly what AMD recommended to their users to enable tesselation control through AMD CCC and run at 8x or 16x and get better performance than Nvidia users for no perceivable loss of quality.

Right now they are a clueless bunch of guys who don't know or pretend to not know or even not bother what Gameworks is doing and the damage its causing not just to AMD users but also Nvidia users of Kepler generation.

1. Bro do you even read what you type? ()

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/04/06/gigabyte_gtx_960_g1_gaming_video_card_review/6

2. Hwc is again just another average review site unable to say anything significant unless they are specifically asked to. Funnily it was [H] who found the xfire inconsistency without any special hardware and NV even contacted them to help with their Fcat which they refused.

3. Why I will turn hairworks off when NV cards can run them easily? makes no sense. I don't remeber sites used to turn off that GI effect (can't remember the exact name tbh) in DS either.Sites will show where your hardware is weak at, they will not try to pamper the cards irrespective of what you demand. I remmeber you, RS asking the 660 Ti to tested against 7950 @8x MSAA while the card was never advertised as such, what happened there?


Bro let me get this straight, you were the guy who over hyped Fury-X saying it would be 10-15% faster than Tx which didn't even come lose to that figure. Right now 980Ti owns it you like it or not and NV's best is yet to have been unveiled.

 

[happy medium]

review bad for AMD cards...shill site
review good for Nvidia cards ....shill site
/thread

Fury reviewers should have used all overclocked fury cards vs undercocked 980ti's cards and no gameworks titles, then its fair.
Oh yea reviewers must use 980ti release drivers vs Furys release drivers, just to be fair, yea thats it.

 

[raghu78]

2. Hwc is again just another average review site unable to say anything significant unless they are specifically asked to. Funnily it was [H] who found the xfire inconsistency without any special hardware and NV even contacted them to help with their Fcat which they refused.

hwc is average because they called out GTX 960 as an unimpressive upgrade to GTX 760. :biggrin: yeah I get it. anybody who doesn't suit your narrative is average.

3. Why I will turn hairworks off when NV cards can run them easily? makes no sense. I don't remeber sites used to turn off that GI effect (can't remember the exact name tbh) in DS either.Sites will show where your hardware is weak at, they will not try to pamper the cards irrespective of what you demand. I remmeber you, RS asking the 660 Ti to tested against 7950 @8x MSAA while the card was never advertised as such, what happened there?

hilariously not even NV cards can run Hairworks easily. According to techspot GTX 980 is playable at 1080p with Hairworks with avg fps at 56 fps and min fps at 28 fps. No other card comes close to being playable at 1080p. Kepler is a wreck. Without Hairworks AMD counterpart cards easily beat it. With Hairworks they are as bad as AMD cards. Nice way to help your last gen cards against the competition :biggrin:

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page6.html

btw thats just one review. Look at other reviews. avg fps on GTX 980 at 38 fps. you can imagine what the min fps would be on that one. :biggrin:

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/6/#diagramm-the-witcher-3-1920-1080

If by Nvidia cards you mean only GTX 980 , 980 Ti and Titan they too are playable at 1080p with avg fps in the 38-52 fps and not even playable with avg fps at 30-40 fps at 1440p. The min fps is not shown by computerbase. But we can see Hairworks hammers that badly. :biggrin:

Bro let me get this straight, you were the guy who over hyped Fury-X saying it would be 10-15% faster than Tx which didn't even come lose to that figure. Right now 980Ti owns it you like it or not and NV's best is yet to have been unveiled.

I admit Fury X is a huge disappointment. Whatever the reason the launch has been underwhelming and imo a failure. I am the first to admit that AMD failed to deliver with Fury X. In fact the lesser hyped R9 390 and R9 390X cards are now turning out to be a better improvement than was expected. :biggrin:

 

[Jaydip]

hwc is average because they called out GTX 960 as an unimpressive upgrade to GTX 760. :biggrin: yeah I get it. anybody who doesn't suit your narrative is average.

hilariously not even NV cards can run Hairworks easily. Other than maybe GTX 980 which is playable at 1080p with Hairworks with min fps at 28 no other card comes close to being playable at 1080p. Kepler is a wreck. Without Hairworks AMD counterpart cards easily beat it.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page6.html

btw thats just one review. Look at other reviews. avg fps on GTX 980 at 38 fps. you can imagine what the min fps would be on that one. :biggrin:

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/6/#diagramm-the-witcher-3-1920-1080

I admit Fury X is a huge disappointment. Whatever the reason the launch has been underwhelming and imo a failure. I am the first to admit that AMD failed to deliver with Fury X. In fact the lesser hyped R9 390 and R9 390X cards are now turning out to be a better improvement than was expected. :biggrin:

1. Well I at least called then an average site not a shill site :biggrin:

Why I call HWC//TPU/G3D/THG average sites because they love to run canned benches and come to a conclusion. TPU even tests these cards @900P I don't care what anyone upgrading to tbh, I think without a min 30% boost it is a waste.

2. You don't need to run W3 @60 fps to enjoy it, it is not a twich shooter. TS agani, people here seems to have bad memories lol, you guys forgot how they tested BL2? another crap site.

3.Well at least something we can agree to :biggrin:

It is not a disappointment for me because of the performance tbh, it is due to the power draw, where the hell is the power saving due to HBM dude? I was going to buy Fury-X because I have never owned a wc card in my life but looks like I will wait ()

 

[raghu78]

Why I call HWC//TPU/G3D/THG average sites because they love to run canned benches and come to a conclusion. TPU even tests these cards @900P I don't care what anyone upgrading to tbh, I think without a min 30% boost it is a waste.

Completely wrong about hwc. They are one of the few sites who run only actual gameplay benchmarks not canned benches aka in built benchmarks. In fact they go one step ahead of hardocp and post the video of the tested section.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-10.html

2. You don't need to run W3 @60 fps to enjoy it, it is not a twich shooter. TS agani, people here seems to have bad memories lol, you guys forgot how they tested BL2? another crap site.

What about those min fps which techspot showed very less than or equal to half ov avg fps. If you look at multiple other reviews the avg fps at 1080p is in the 30s

3.Well at least something we can agree to :biggrin:

It is not a disappointment for me because of the performance tbh, it is due to the power draw, where the hell is the power saving due to HBM dude? I was going to buy Fury-X because I have never owned a wc card in my life but looks like I will wait ()

Fundamentally the GCN architecture in its current form is no match for Maxwell's power efficiency. The 4 HBM chips on its own saves only 15w compared to R9 290X's 4GB GDDR5.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9266/amd-hbm-deep-dive/4

The power savings of the HBM controller on the Fiji chip combined with the HBM chips might add upto 40-50w as its a ultra wide memory controller running at very slow speeds of 500 Mhz. Fiji did bring some power efficiency improvements through finer power gating. HBM is not a magic pill to cure GCN's power inefficiency. Microarchitectural power efficiency is with Maxwell. GCN cannot match Maxwell's power efficiency. Its as simple as that.

 

[flopper]

I admit Fury X is a huge disappointment. Whatever the reason the launch has been underwhelming and imo a failure. I am the first to admit that AMD failed to deliver with Fury X.

Hum, 28nm node, cool silent cooling solution. 4k great performance within the ballpark of other 28nm node cards even beating them there. New technology HBM, small factor.
True their launch should been different. I find their presentation wasnt good, little stressed.
Personally I think they should have skipped the review sites and done it totally differently.
(They didnt ask me though)

Those changing from a Titan X to Fury x tells a different story than hardocp tells.

Awaiting the fury 2

 

[Jaydip]

Completely wrong about hwc. They are one of the few sites who run only actual gameplay benchmarks not canned benches aka in built benchmarks. In fact they go one step ahead of hardocp and post the video of the tested section.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-10.html



What about those min fps which techspot showed very less than or equal to half ov avg fps. If you look at multiple other reviews the avg fps at 1080p is in the 30s



Fundamentally the GCN architecture in its current form is no match for Maxwell's power efficiency. The 4 HBM chips on its own saves only 15w compared to R9 290X's 4GB GDDR5.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9266/amd-hbm-deep-dive/4

The power savings of the HBM controller on the Fiji chip combined with the HBM chips might add upto 40-50w as its a ultra wide memory controller running at very slow speeds of 500 Mhz. Fiji did bring some power efficiency improvements through finer power gating. HBM is not a magic pill to cure GCN's power inefficiency. Microarchitectural power efficiency is with Maxwell. GCN cannot match Maxwell's power efficiency. Its as simple as that.

1. Lol it is kinda funny watching you appreciate HWC lol

2. Did you bother to check what I said about TS earlier?

 

[tential]

[H]'s methods have revealed a lot about the functionality of cards. They just don't seem to analyze their results too well.

If you ever see [H] change their software suite to not favor nVidia it'll be when they review an AMD model from Asus.

They just use the current new releases out. That happens to favor Nvidia more because they have more new titles released right now.

 

[3DVagabond]

They just use the current new releases out. That happens to favor Nvidia more because they have more new titles released right now.

Why would you use such a random system for reviewing? So, nVidia or AMD just make sure they time the release of their new cards to games they are sponsoring, and don't give the comp a chance to optimize. LOL

 

[ocre]

The power savings of the HBM controller on the Fiji chip combined with the HBM chips might add upto 40-50w as its a ultra wide memory controller running at very slow speeds of 500 Mhz. Fiji did bring some power efficiency improvements through finer power gating. HBM is not a magic pill to cure GCN's power inefficiency. Microarchitectural power efficiency is with Maxwell. GCN cannot match Maxwell's power efficiency. Its as simple as that.

Amd made major progress power consumption with fury. To me, it doesn't where it comes from. That is one of the shining traits I appreciate about it.

I hope the air cooled versions don't have issues with cooling. Other than transistor density, I don't see a lot of reasons it would.
Fury X is a great card, it really is. Just the wrong price.

I just do not think matching what is already out there, same performance for he same price, it's not at all great. You have to make a splash, shake up the market. Amd failed to do that. Even the 300series. It just doesn't move us.

I think it is true, we all loose in the end

 

[monstercameron]

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/615...-flag-ship-graphics-card-overclocking-results

If true this could be big! 100mhz of on mem and core gave such a decent boost.

 

[.vodka]

Good to see HBM can be overclocked, first tries resulted in corruption IIRC. Probably from unsupported OC tools.

1050 -> 1145 is 10%
500 -> 600 is 20%

End result, 14098 -> 16963 is 20% increase ._. How would this translate into games, that's the main concern here...


Interesting, memory overclocking dominates the result. Now what could happen if the core gets pushed higher when overvolting becomes available? It certainly looks very promising.

 

[3DVagabond]

Amd made major progress power consumption with fury. To me, it doesn't where it comes from. That is one of the shining traits I appreciate about it.

I hope the air cooled versions don't have issues with cooling. Other than transistor density, I don't see a lot of reasons it would.
Fury X is a great card, it really is. Just the wrong price.

I just do not think matching what is already out there, same performance for he same price, it's not at all great. You have to make a splash, shake up the market. Amd failed to do that. Even the 300series. It just doesn't move us.

I think it is true, we all loose in the end

Transistor density was never an issue. Cards with properly designed coolers kept Hawaii cool and quiet. The chip being too small for proper heat pipe contact was an issue for some coolers. Since Fury uses approx. the same power air coolers will work just a swell. Tri-X, Vapor-X, PCS+ are going to run as cool and quiet as any of the same 290X cards did.

I had also read somewhere (don't remember, sorry) that AMD was going to use the 7990/S10000 cooler (redesigned for a single GPU, of course). Might just be wishful thinking by people, of course.

 

[ocre]

well, it's not out of control when it comes to power consumption. So, I can't really see any reason for the air cooled Fiji's to be hard to cool.
. These days, I try to be careful with expectations.

But, I think it seems safe to believe there will be no issues with air cooling Fiji.

 

[tential]

Why would you use such a random system for reviewing? So, nVidia or AMD just make sure they time the release of their new cards to games they are sponsoring, and don't give the comp a chance to optimize. LOL

Why would every site use the SAME system for reviewing? That would defeat the purpose. Having a wide range of style reviews is amazing for the user.

 

[3DVagabond]

Why would every site use the SAME system for reviewing? That would defeat the purpose. Having a wide range of style reviews is amazing for the user.

Yeah, that's what I said... Oh wait, no I didn't.

 

[Keysplayr]

Yeah, that's what I said... Oh wait, no I didn't.

Well, you left a lot of room for interpretation in that last post. I had thought the same thing as Tential.

What would you suggest all review sites do then?