AMD Fury X Reviews

[moonbogg]

Ok this part is flat out incorrect. Fury X is quieter than almost all after-market 980Ti cards that have been out so far and it's world's quieter than a reference 980Ti.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/9/

980Ti OC reference is a > 50dBA jet engine and runs at 82-84C which means it's worthless for overclocking without headphones or blasting speakers high. When Fury X is overclocked, almost nothing changes since the rad keeps it cool and quiet. OTOH, 980Ti reference shouldn't even be in the conservation with after-market 980Ti and Fury X cards - the blower TX cooler on it is simply trash.

I got it from Guru3D.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,13.html

They compared noise levels and they were the same. So, there ya go. If you want to compare OC vs OC then that's a different thing. It just shows the AIO unit isn't all silent and nice. It sounds like a regular fan just like all the other cards in the slides.

 

[antihelten]

Any site that claims 980 is a Fury X competitor (TR, HardOCP) are just showing their true colours. Brand agnostic reviewers that test a lot of games, not 4-5 games like Project CARS and The Witcher 3 with Hairworks, all show Fury X demolishing a 980 at 1440P and 4K.

If a professional reviewer claims that Fury X is only as good as the 980, they are either getting marketing $ from NV or they are 100% biased in their GPU reviews and simply prefer NV as a gamer or they like doing cherry-picked reviews (for some reason....).

Regarding cherry-picked reviews, I really hope Brent_J is being sarcastic here:

My only regret was not having enough time to also include Batman or Project Cars.

source

 

[utahraptor]

Doesn't say much or show any compute benchmarks.

Well the indication is they threw out the compute performance in favour of gaming performance just like the Titan X.

 

[monstercameron]

Well the indication is they threw out the compute performance in favour of gaming performance just like the Titan X.

Only professional dp compute metrics, so compute has gone up massively!

 

[Silverforce11]

Regarding cherry-picked reviews, I really hope Brent_J is being sarcastic here:



source

No he isn't being /s, the guy went full-NV shilling a long time ago when his own forum members pointed out the stacking of GameWorks titles and he blames AMD for performing badly in NV sponsored titles. No blame at all for the devs or NV itself.

Soon their reviews will be Dying Light, Project Cars, FC4 with GW, Witcher 3 with GW and Batman with GW on.

Tell me how AMD is supposed to compete, they'll need Fury X +50% to match that crippling.

 

[exar333]

AMD should really push to get the Fury X2 (dual Fiji) out. With the card size advantage, they could easily sell a good amount of those for $999-1099 and steal some sales from Titan X or even SLI 980Ti buyers. The single card, while still being a 'standard size' would be great for a smaller gaming build. Based on the Fury X reviews, I want to see what the pro has to offer and the Fury X2 has to offer before I choose. Also waiting for some more extreme 980Ti options....

Maybe it is a blessing that I don't have much time to game for the next couple months.

 

[blastingcap]

For those crying foul about testing only a few games however popular they are... including RS who USED TO say that testing the heaviest hitters was more relevant (since the difference between 40 and 30 fps is way bigger than the difference between 120 and 100 fps)...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-22.html

Fury X loses to 980 Ti at 1440p but can match the 980Ti at 4K (only 2% slower).

However OC vs OC I get the feeling Fury X gets spanked, and neither of them can really handle 4K with the heaviest hitters anyway. I'm still waiting for 14/16nm GPUs.

 

[SPBHM]

it's an impressive product overall, performance is up there, power usage is in control, not far from Titan X, but (excluding Project Cars and this kind of stuff)... for the same money as the 980 ti... seems like a difficult choice going with the Fury to say the least, unfortunately as expected the 980 ti spoiled the entire thing for AMD.

one thing I look forward to is the Win10 launch, since it could help at least with the worst game.;

http://pclab.pl/art63999-62.html

in any case, it's good to see this level of competition again

 

[Lalilulelo]

No he isn't being /s, the guy went full-NV shilling a long time ago when his own forum members pointed out the stacking of GameWorks titles and he blames AMD for performing badly in NV sponsored titles. No blame at all for the devs or NV itself.

Soon their reviews will be Dying Light, Project Cars, FC4 with GW, Witcher 3 with GW and Batman with GW on.

Tell me how AMD is supposed to compete, they'll need Fury X +50% to match that crippling.

le gameworks masterRACE :awe:

 

[moonbogg]

AMD should really push to get the Fury X2 (dual Fiji) out. With the card size advantage, they could easily sell a good amount of those for $999-1099 and steal some sales from Titan X or even SLI 980Ti buyers. The single card, while still being a 'standard size' would be great for a smaller gaming build. Based on the Fury X reviews, I want to see what the pro has to offer and the Fury X2 has to offer before I choose. Also waiting for some more extreme 980Ti options....

Maybe it is a blessing that I don't have much time to game for the next couple months.

That would be a cool card and all, but I think AMD made a huge mistake here that people haven't mentioned. They tarnished the name of yet another great brand from the past, the "Fury" name is now associated with a bad card, just like they ruined the "FX" name. They should have really saved those names until they had something great to roll out. This card just killed the Fury brand IMO. Oh well, there goes all that I suppose.
When Nvidia revealed the Titan brand, the performance matched the name and everyone knew it. They had the fastest card and it had a cool new look and that's why the premium branding worked.

Also, LOL yeah, I forgot. This card was meant to be compared to Titan X. If that were the case, the Fury would look pretty decent really. Close to Titan performance for way less. Problem is you can buy a Titan for $650 now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, Fury is not the cat's ass.

 

[GrQ]

Have someone read Xfire / Sli benchmark ? very intersting :hmm:
http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-crossfire-gaming-benchmarks-vs-sli-titan-x-idnum361/

 

[NTMBK]

That would be a cool card and all, but I think AMD made a huge mistake here that people haven't mentioned. They tarnished the name of yet another great brand from the past, the "Fury" name is now associated with a bad card, just like they ruined the "FX" name. They should have really saved those names until they had something great to roll out. This card just killed the Fury brand IMO. Oh well, there goes all that I suppose.
When Nvidia revealed the Titan brand, the performance matched the name and everyone knew it. They had the fastest card and it had a cool new look and that's why the premium branding worked.

Also, LOL yeah, I forgot. This card was meant to be compared to Titan X. If that were the case, the Fury would look pretty decent really. Close to Titan performance for way less. Problem is you can buy a Titan for $650 now.

Ah come on, it's not a terrible card. It's cool, quiet, and almost as fast as the Titan X. It's not #1, but it's not Bulldozer bad.

 

[LTC8K6]

Have someone read Xfire / Sli benchmark ? very intersting :hmm:
http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-crossfire-gaming-benchmarks-vs-sli-titan-x-idnum361/

Still a toss up stock, so probably wins for NV with OC?

 

[Ares202]

Slightly dissapointed. The card needed 5-10% over the 980 Ti to sell well at $699. It's the same price point as the 980 Ti so the clear choice is to go with Nvidia, it has 6gb of RAM and is faster overall. At $549 this would be much more attractive, Infact I would probably buy one

Remember when Nvidia released the GTX 280 and then AMD released the 4870 a month later with 90% of the performance for half the price. That was when AMD/ATI were on a roll.

 

[iiiankiii]

That would be a cool card and all, but I think AMD made a huge mistake here that people haven't mentioned. They tarnished the name of yet another great brand from the past, the "Fury" name is now associated with a bad card, just like they ruined the "FX" name. They should have really saved those names until they had something great to roll out. This card just killed the Fury brand IMO. Oh well, there goes all that I suppose.
When Nvidia revealed the Titan brand, the performance matched the name and everyone knew it. They had the fastest card and it had a cool new look and that's why the premium branding worked.

Also, LOL yeah, I forgot. This card was meant to be compared to Titan X. If that were the case, the Fury would look pretty decent really. Close to Titan performance for way less. Problem is you can buy a Titan for $650 now.

It's not bad. At $650, there is a better option. That option is the GTX 980TI. Remember the saying; there is no such thing as a bad product; just bad pricing. Priced at $550, the Fury X would be an awesome, awesome card.

 

[Lalilulelo]

Slightly dissapointed. The card needed 5-10% over the 980 Ti to sell well at $699

At the same price point as the 980 Ti the clear choice is to go with Nvidia, it has 6gb of RAM and is faster overall.

plus HDMI 2.0 , the resell valve for that card is decent

 

[Udgnim]

PCPer has the Fury X in a more positive light along with FCAT data

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested

Fury X loses in BF4, GTA 5 (significantly), Grid 2. Wins Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, Crysis 3, Metro Last Light.

 

[blastingcap]

That would be a cool card and all, but I think AMD made a huge mistake here that people haven't mentioned. They tarnished the name of yet another great brand from the past, the "Fury" name is now associated with a bad card, just like they ruined the "FX" name.

Insert the fast and the FURYous joke here. Where NV = fast and AMD = furious that they aren't as fast. This is what AMD gets for decimating its R&D budget and laying off so many engineers.

But yeah due to the 4GB VRAM, video output issues, etc. this is like a role reversal: buying a Fury X instead of 980 Ti is like buying a GTX 680 2GB instead of a HD7970 GHz 3GB... it just doesn't make sense for unbiased people.

 

[Hitman928]

Compute:

Video performance with power use:

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/...8/#diagramm-videos-abspielen-h265-lav-filters

 

[BrentJ]

No he isn't being /s, the guy went full-NV shilling a long time ago when his own forum members pointed out the stacking of GameWorks titles and he blames AMD for performing badly in NV sponsored titles. No blame at all for the devs or NV itself.

Soon their reviews will be Dying Light, Project Cars, FC4 with GW, Witcher 3 with GW and Batman with GW on.

Tell me how AMD is supposed to compete, they'll need Fury X +50% to match that crippling.

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.

 

[RussianSensation]

I got it from Guru3D.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,13.html

They compared noise levels and they were the same. So, there ya go. If you want to compare OC vs OC then that's a different thing. It just shows the AIO unit isn't all silent and nice. It sounds like a regular fan just like all the other cards in the slides.

You can't just look at 1 review site for noise level testing. Look at 10-20 sites and what do you see? 980Ti is hot and loud. Nearly every 980Ti owner has admitted to the same on our very boards from personal user experience. You can mention coil whine against some Fury X samples, or pump noise, sure, but a reference 980Ti blower is not quiet. I hope for Pascal NV brings out AIO CLC as that would be a monster card. No more blower cards from me, probably ever.

Also, did you actually listen to the videos of the cards?

Even if we take Fury X out of the picture, who in their right mind would buy a reference blower 980Ti and give up 18-20% overclocking performance at quiet noise levels against after-market 980Ti cards? There are only 4 users who fit this: (1) Tri- or Quad-SLI users (2) Guys putting waterblocks on a reference 980Ti (3) Gamers who only game with headphones (or have bad hearing) (4) Users with the smallest cases there a blower is required but in that case Fury X is even better.

Regarding cherry-picked reviews, I really hope Brent_J is being sarcastic here:

I bet he is not. This is probably a strategic move to cater to your readership and marketing $. Small sites like PCPer and HardOCP rely much more on marketing money and ad clicks than a large site like AT that reviews a much greater variety of products, not just PC parts. With 80% of NV's customers and NV having much more influence, the more GW titles he includes, the more he hypes up NV, the better it is for his site's membership and NV review perks, etc.

Well the indication is they threw out the compute performance in favour of gaming performance just like the Titan X.

Hexus shows Fury X has 1/16th DP.

Depending on the computer workload though, Fury X can beat GM200.

Most of us don't care about DP though and it was just a minority of OG Titan owners that talked about it to justify why getting ripped off was worth it back then. :biggrin:

 

[Abwx]

Doesn't say much or show any compute benchmarks.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/8/#diagramm-musemage

 

[RussianSensation]

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.

You need to be able to understand that PC gamers don't play 4-5 games a year, most of which are GW titles. We want a general overview of the card's overall performance. If you don't want to provide those reviews, you should discuss the performance in specific games, and not draw overall conclusions on 4-5 games. Your reviews lack variety (no Total War games, no racing games, no strategy games of any kind, no MMO games, etc.) This means that all of your modern reviews are too small to conclude on the card's overall performance.

Secondly, your conclusions are out of this world:

Bottom line section:
"In terms of gaming performance, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X seems like better competition for the GeForce GTX 980 4GB video card, rather than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. GTX 980 cards are selling for as low at $490 today."

How can anyone think 980 and Fury X are on the same page? :sneaky:

When almost every professional site online disagrees with you, the problem is probably your review or your testing methodology (not testing enough games to draw an accurate conclusion).

http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20730-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/17#content

or

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/5/

or

Even HWC shows 24-30% lead over 980.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-22.html

You might really want to either augment your reviews with more games or just outline in your reviews that you aren't assessing the card's overall performance in a wide variety of games but only games you like to play/latest AAA games.

Even your previous analysis of 4GB vs. 6GB of VRAM where you kept saying how 6GB is bare minimum for 4K was totally flawed since 980TI SLI outperforms Titan X in nearly every game you've ever tested at 1440P or 4K where SLI scales. You seem to be confusing VRAM required vs. dynamic VRAM the game uses by just looking at MSI AB data. In other situations you aren't calling out horrible PC game optimizations like in Dying Light that cripples VRAM for little to no benefit with higher draw distance. Because most gamers would rather play at constant 60 fps than suffer FPS below 60 in Dying Light, we aren't going to crank draw distance to the maximum to get a 2% improvement in graphics. That means your testing is 100% catered to how you want to play (meaning less emphasis on higher FPS) at the expense of minimal improvement in graphical quality despite a massive performance hit, not how most PC gamers play Dying Light. Can you actually say that the performance hit with 100% draw distance is actually worth it dipping below 60 fps vs. 50-75% draw distance?

 

[.vodka]

A compute monster all in all, GCN never dissapointed on that regard.

Fury X is a good card, not excellent as it's supposed to be on paper, but good enough. Going forward W10+DX12 + new drivers should do the trick as it did for the 7970 and the 290x. Looking forward to OC+OV.

I wonder what the aftermarket air cooled cards and Fury Nano will bring to the table.


The video benchmarks are amazing. This card should eat madVR on its highest settings for breakfast!