AMD Fury X Reviews

[RampantAndroid]

It's not even possible to have any sort of meaningful debate when your reading comprehension is as bad as it is.

Hmmm.

You ever heard of a RAM disk? I'm not suggesting they are using a RAM disk BTW. Also, why would you dump to a virtual disk if the data is already on the disk in the game install?

My original statement was, "are you really telling me that AMD would take things out of VRAM and put them in system RAM where they could be paged out into virtual memory on the disk?" - I think you're the one not reading, given what I was saying makes absolute sense. If the driver is placing things into RAM, and there's a lot of pressure on the RAM, then things will be paged about. It isn't a matter of deciding to put things into virtual memory (not "virtual disk"?) It's a matter of the OS doing memory management.

I suppose what you meant to say was not something about a RAM disk, but rather suggest that AMD's driver process has used a VirtualLock to ensure the memory isn't paged out (Raymond Chen has an article about this somewhere.) But I'd still maintain that it's not a viable solution (as it could then cause the game's memory to get paged into virtual memory which would not be ideal), unless AMD is going to say there's a minimum amount of RAM needed to install a Fury card.

And you know what? This forum can *probably* do with less of the "you fail at reading" nonsense.

/ignore

 

[Despoiler]

Hmmm.



My original statement was, "are you really telling me that AMD would take things out of VRAM and put them in system RAM where they could be paged out into virtual memory on the disk?" - I think you're the one not reading, given what I was saying makes absolute sense. If the driver is placing things into RAM, and there's a lot of pressure on the RAM, then things will be paged about. It isn't a matter of deciding to put things into virtual memory (not "virtual disk"?) It's a matter of the OS doing memory management.

I suppose what you meant to say was not something about a RAM disk, but rather suggest that AMD's driver process has used a VirtualLock to ensure the memory isn't paged out (Raymond Chen has an article about this somewhere.) But I'd still maintain that it's not a viable solution (as it could then cause the game's memory to get paged into virtual memory which would not be ideal), unless AMD is going to say there's a minimum amount of RAM needed to install a Fury card.

And you know what? This forum can *probably* do with less of the "you fail at reading" nonsense.

/ignore

It's good to be right.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/7

The good news here is that the current situation leaves overhead that AMD can optimize around. AMD has been creating both generic and game-specific memory optimizations in order to better manage VRAM usage and what resources are held in local VRAM versus paging out to system memory. By controlling duplicate resources and clamping down on overzealous caching by games, it is possible to get more mileage out of the 4GB of VRAM AMD has.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So in short AMD have to sit and hand manage every single demanding game in VRAM terms. But obviously it isnt going so well already. And who knows if they dont do a "mantle" there. Its a shame that hynix let them down there, and they didnt pull a plan B with GDDR5. Also why Fiji wont see the pro market.

The last issue that dogs AMD here is VRAM capacity. At the end of the day first-generation HBM limits them to 4GB of VRAM, and while they’ve made a solid effort to work around the problem, there is only so much they can do. 4GB is enough right now, but I am concerned that R9 Fury X owners will run into VRAM capacity issues before the card is due for a replacement even under an accelerated 2 year replacement schedule.

 

[railven]

So in short AMD have to sit and hand manage every single demanding game in VRAM terms. But obviously it isnt going so well already. And who knows if they dont do a "mantle" there. Its a shame that hynix let them down there, and they didnt pull a plan B with GDDR5. Also why Fiji wont see the pro market.

So, serious question - what's preventing AMD from rolling out a Fiji GDDR5 edition? Does the silicon have to be redesigned? (Just wondering if that is something possible).

 

[ShintaiDK]

So, serious question - what's preventing AMD from rolling out a Fiji GDDR5 edition? Does the silicon have to be redesigned? (Just wondering if that is something possible).

New chip design yes. Replace HBM memory controller with GDDR5. But power consumption would go up obviously. And clocks possible down due to power limits.

On the financial side, money.

 

[Qwertilot]

Also a GDDR version wouldn't really fit the idea. The one thing these cards really have to do is maintain AMD's conceptual relevance for when the die shrinks come along.
(Imagine if they'd just launched the 3xx cards!).

Hopefully acting as marketing for the 3xx stuff too. If they do a decent job of that then how well they sell isn't so critical.

As such they need to be as shiny/distinctive etc as possible. HBM does that fairly well I guess.

 

[Enigmoid]

So, serious question - what's preventing AMD from rolling out a Fiji GDDR5 edition? Does the silicon have to be redesigned? (Just wondering if that is something possible).

If HBM is really saving a significant amount of die space then using GDDR5 would put the chip over the reticule limit.

Power consumption would go up.

IMO, what I amd getting from Fury is that AMD is working hard to get power consumption under control but Fury X is really a much rosier picture than the actual state of the arch. Lower temps reduces power and Fury seems to be putting the voltage as low as it can go. On air and with looser voltage controls this chip is going to suck down a ton of power, not as bad as Hawaii but worse than Fury X appears to be now.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If HBM is really saving a significant amount of die space then using GDDR5 would put the chip over the reticule limit.

Power consumption would go up.

IMO, what I amd getting from Fury is that AMD is working hard to get power consumption under control but Fury X is really a much rosier picture than the actual state of the arch. Lower temps reduces power and Fury seems to be putting the voltage as low as it can go. On air and with looser voltage controls this chip is going to suck down a ton of power, not as bad as Hawaii but worse than Fury X appears to be now.

I was going to make a similar comment, GDDR5 would add so much power consumption and heat into the equation, and requite an entirely new cooler as well. They needed decide a year or more ago to go HBM or GDDR5. If Fury X uses so much power now, I don't want to see what it uses with GDDR5.

 

[Glo.]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28258333&postcount=2391

Curious if anyone has seen this. It turns out that comparison video was made on the "same" settings on the same computer setup, and differed only by GPUs.

It would be funny if Nvidia was dumping the details in their drivers to get higher performance.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28259141&postcount=2488 HOLY CRAP!

Im sorry, but im reading this thread on oc.uk right now.

Edit. Turns out to be solved . NVM then.

 

[ShintaiDK]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28258333&postcount=2391

Curious if anyone has seen this. It turns out that comparison video was made on the "same" settings on the same computer setup, and differed only by GPUs.

It would be funny if Nvidia was dumping the details in their drivers to get higher performance.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28259141&postcount=2488 HOLY CRAP!

Im sorry, but im reading this thread on oc.uk right now.

Already discussed. And useless for compare.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2437903&page=2

 

[ZGR]

Is the GTX 780 ti suffering from low VRAM? Fury seems to be in a similar situation as the 780 ti was at launch regarding VRAM capacity.

 

[Silverforce11]

Already discussed. And useless for compare.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2437903&page=2

Not that useless afterall.

NV's driver "bug" (I'm being nice and calling it a bug), default "Let App Decide" = override App settings and defaults to crap.

The difference? 10% Performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IIM9fncqc

How long as this bug being around for? Years.

Now the question arise, which review sites test with driver settings on DEFAULT versus Maxed Quality?

10% is a big deal considering many here are dissing Fury X for being 10% behind at 1440p and tying 4k.

 

[.vodka]

That BF4 scene on the TX, default settings makes me want to throw up. That is unacceptable. What is nV thinking allowing such crappy IQ as the default? I thought issues like these had been put to rest years ago... I mean, after the GF FX debacle on their side...


I wonder on how many other games we can see differences like in the two comparisons above, and how does the nV lineup compare to AMD's when both are rendering at the same expected quality level.


10% free performance from puke inducing IQ is a significant number.

 

[Silverforce11]

According to @Jacky60 here, http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2437903

Who recently went from AMD to NV, he notices worse image quality in GTA V (lacking AF again but also no dynamic reflection on car windows), and Arma 3 (worse view distance). Besides the usual "washed out" colors on NV, but that is a subjective thing.

 

[boozzer]

anyone knows if there will ever be a 3rd party fury x? preferably one with factory oced clocks?

 

[3DVagabond]

anyone knows if there will ever be a 3rd party fury x? preferably one with factory oced clocks?

I don't think so, but all Fury (non X) are supposed to be AIB models.

 

[amenx]

How long as this bug being around for? Years.

.

That one was pure FUD and repeatedly debunked (with counter screenshots) several times going back to 2013.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37532736&postcount=9

original 2013 thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2311852

 

[RaulF]

Is the GTX 780 ti suffering from low VRAM? Fury seems to be in a similar situation as the 780 ti was at launch regarding VRAM capacity.

I can tell you my personal experience with 780 Ti when i had them.

COD Ghost would have random hitches, the 290X did not. And when looking in afterburner memory usage was a bit over 3.2.

 

[tential]

That BF4 scene on the TX, default settings makes me want to throw up. That is unacceptable. What is nV thinking allowing such crappy IQ as the default? I thought issues like these had been put to rest years ago... I mean, after the GF FX debacle on their side...


I wonder on how many other games we can see differences like in the two comparisons above, and how does the nV lineup compare to AMD's when both are rendering at the same expected quality level.


10% free performance from puke inducing IQ is a significant number.

I notice this kind of behavior regularly from nvidia which makes me that much more wary purchasing products from them.

 

[railven]

I just found out FFXIV is now a Gameworks title. Whatever NV does to keep securing titles I play, makes it easier to buy them.

And woof, you can see who is misleading when they don't even discuss what happened about that AF issue. Hint: Fury X still won't win

 

[Gregster1970]

Mind if I stick my review of the Fury X here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nye2rhsA94

 

[Sabrewings]

I notice this kind of behavior regularly from nvidia which makes me that much more wary purchasing products from them.

Seeing how this was already determined to be an isolated bug, it's of little relevance I think. Things are blown out of proportion easily on the internet. Case in point your post, which is quoting someone from four days ago prior to the details of this particular instance coming out.

 

[.vodka]

Exactly. That post of mine was made when the issue was thought to be made by nV's default CP settings. Turned out to be something else.

 

[desprado]

G1 GTX 980 TI SLI vs Fury X 4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJYWXHOUoFY

Fact GTX 980 TI>>>>>>Fury X even at 4K.

 

[Hitman928]

G1 GTX 980 TI SLI vs Fury X 4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJYWXHOUoFY

Fact GTX 980 TI>>>>>>Fury X even at 4K.

That's not the impression I got from the video you linked. Even with one of the highest factory OC'd 980 TIs, the Fury Xs keeps up quite well, at least at 4k.