utahraptor
Golden Member
- Apr 26, 2004
- 1,053
- 199
- 106
The scaling is way lower that I expected comparing with a 290X. Maybe the 64ROPs killed the card or its drivers.
Quick glance at Gigabyte G1 980Ti review at TPU shows 20-22% lead when pro-rating benchmarks against the Fury X both at 1440p and 4K. Fury X looks to max out at 1150mhz on most sites which is easily negated by another 12-13% overclock on the G1 (to 1512mhz). That means at 1440p, the 1.5Ghz 980Ti OC should be beating Fury X OC by 18-20% or more. You also get extra VRAM as a bonus and a stock G1 980Ti uses just 293W of power at TPU for 18% more performance over a reference 980Ti that Fury barely matches at 1440p.
Hugely disappointed to be honest. Granted I did expect 980Ti to lead on many GW titles but Fury X's worse overclocking and less VRAM for a similar price makes no sense to me. Also, nearly every UE4 game I've seen has Maxwell doing really well.
I think AMD needed to either polish the drivers more or prices this card at $579. Right now a $670 after-market 980Ti OC is looking to be 18-20% faster. AMD could have gotten away with this pricing against a hot and loud reference Titan X / 980Ti, but not against after-market custom 980Tis. We haven't even seen Classy, HOF or MSI Lightning 980Ti cards.
What AMD needs is $549 fully unlocked Fury Pro with after-market cards clocked 1150mhz out of the box. Then it will shake up the market.
I will probably wait until 14/16nm HBM2 gen or until price drops. If Maxwell is this good with outdated GDDR5 and measly 336GB/sec of bandwith on 28nm, I can't wait to see what a 16nm 700GB/sec-1TB/sec Big Daddy Pascal will bring. I feel like AMD had a good run with GCN but I it's a bit worrying that their 596mm2 GCN chip couldn't even beat a 601mm2 Maxwell considering 438mm2 290X did so well against a 561mm2 780Ti. It looks like Maxwell's 35-40% increase in IPC has finally started to make GCN 1.2 look rather aged. AMD needs GCN 2.0 or a new radical architecture if they even think they can keep up with Pascal. If 980Ti was.
Fury X looks to max out at 1150mhz on most sites
The frametime reports over at guru3d is very impressive. Of course nobody cares about it now lol, was only relevant when certain parties wanted it measured.
That's largely because voltage is still locked right?
Overclocking
Overclocking then. 3rd party tools currently do not offer full tweaking support on the Radeon Fury X, it is simply too new a product. Current limitations are voltage adjustment for both GPU and memory, as well as frequency changes on the HBM memory. In the future we'll have to see how support on that will pan out. GPU voltage is going to be trivial here though as we could only mildly tweak the GPU to 1125 MHz (+75 MHz), after that it started to become unstable. Whether or not you need to tweak memory... well with that much bandwidth at hand you have to wonder if it even would make a difference. As always, overclocking results can vary per production batch and your PC infrastructure and cooling.
Trading blows is not great, needed a clear victory.
Though still might get it because 980 Tis are stupidly expensive here, I could get a Fury for like 300 less.
Fury X has some bad frame time spikes in GTA V though:
Oh wow, with a $300 difference, Fury is easily the winner in that context. I did notice very low frame times at Tom's, often better than 980Ti/Titan X. Haven't had a lot of time reading many reviews; will need to catch up over the week.
I am interested to see 980Ti SLi OC vs. Fury X CF OC at 1440p and 4K, and their frame times as well.
I just feel like if AMD priced a 4096 shader air cooled Fury at $549, it could be a better buy. I am hoping Fury PRO is that card but if it's a cut-down 3584 shader card, AMD has a lot of driver work ahead. 4K scaling at TPU is less than 25% against a 390X.
This product is good for AMD users looking to stay with AMD; not so much for winning over nVidia users.
I've decided to skip this generation and stick with my original Titan a bit longer.
using TechPowerUp's performance charts, Fury X is only ~5% faster than GTX 980 @ 1080
~15% @ 1440 & ~25% @ 4K over GTX 980 but I would still expect Fury X to have a bigger performance advantage over GTX 980 @ 1080
I'm guessing the normal Fury is going to be cut down Fiji. at $550, I'm not sure if it's going to be in that great of a spot. GTX 980Ti will be very attractive for $100 more.
GTX 980 will likely be better than cut down Fiji @ 1080 and perform more closely @ 1440. neither card is strong enough for 4K unless going multi gpu.
This product is good for AMD users looking to stay with AMD; not so much for winning over nVidia users.
I've decided to skip this generation and stick with my original Titan a bit longer.