Thats a good graph showing the actual landscape: Custom 980 vs custom fury. G1 pulls ahead out of the box at $519.99. I was hoping to see AMD upset the market, but it seems they simply slotted in where nvidia has been for nearly a year.
Hardware.fr review.
This the problem facing the fury cards, custom cooled non-ref cards. Whats the best OC out of a fury?
That graph shows the issue perfectly. Take the 390X. 100-150$ cheaper, close to the same performance and TWICE the VRAM. The competition against nVidia is bad enough. But putting 8GB on the 390/390X while the Fury series is "handicapped" with 4GB doesnt make it any easier.
You have right.In normal games Fury is far faster than GTX980.I think average performance without Bugged/gameworks games is fury 15% faster than GTX980 in 2560x1440That graph shows the problem with predominantly GameWorks titles. AMD scales poorly in Dying Light (with NV features HBAO & DOF, [H] found 30% perf hit), Project Cars, Witcher 3 with HairWorks (without Tessellation override).
When the amount of games widen, so does the lead Fury has on 980 as well as 390X.
You have right.In normal games Fury is far faster than GTX980.I think average performance without Bugged/gameworks games is fury 15% faster than GTX980 in 2560x1440
Look at this i calculated performance difference fury vs GTX980 in each game
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37549714&postcount=112
Btw can someone calculate performance summary from my post without gameworks/bugged games?
crysis3- fury 20.5% faster
Why are techpowerup's numbers you are quoting so out of whack with AT? PCPer doesn't show that kind of difference either?
Yeah I don't agree with that, 970 arguably has better price/performance than R9 390.
The VRAM issue sucks but if you're using it as a 1080p card as intended I don't see 3.5GB being much of a limitation.
R9 290s are a better buy than the 390 or 970, but they won't be around for much longer.
pcper have 28%Why are techpowerup's numbers you are quoting so out of whack with AT? PCPer doesn't show that kind of difference either?
That graph shows the problem with predominantly GameWorks titles. AMD scales poorly in Dying Light (with NV features HBAO & DOF, [H] found 30% perf hit), Project Cars, Witcher 3 with HairWorks (without Tessellation override).
When the amount of games widen, so does the lead Fury has on 980 as well as 390X.
The 980 power consumption will explode when overclocked. Also people are touting 980 ocing like its a piece of cake to hit 1500mhz on every single gpu.When you factor in overclocking, I think a 980 is still more compelling at $499.99 than a Fury at $549.99.
Performance will be more even between the two, the 980 will play well in Gameworks games, it'll use less power, and it'll save you $50.00.
in BF4 all Ultra settings I'm maintaining locked 96hz @ 1440p on my Korean with a single 980ti OC to 1400. the difference from 96 to 60 is massive and more noticeable than going from 96 to 120/144. 1440p and high refresh with max settings is doable on 980ti.With 1440p 144hz, you can't do it on a single GPU you need two at the least. Similar to 4K at 60hz.
So basically single GPU users are strictly 1080p 60hz or 1440p 60hz with toned down settings.
The 980 power consumption will explode when overclocked. Also people are touting 980 ocing like its a piece of cake to hit 1500mhz on every single gpu.
1300mhz is probably a safer bet with golden chips hitting higher, and 1500mhz requiring stupid amounts of voltage. I am talking stable overclock s here not what forum attention seekers call stable where they can run a game long enough to complete a test.
in BF4 all Ultra settings I'm maintaining locked 96hz @ 1440p on my Korean with a single 980ti OC to 1400. the difference from 96 to 60 is massive and more noticeable than going from 96 to 120/144. 1440p and high refresh with max settings is doable on 980ti.
I have to say, that power consumption of Asus Strix Fury is pretty much impressive.
I think it is possible to squeeze that GPU to 125W and put into Mac Pro.
well, that is that. this gen of cards are not worth it. I guess my 290 will survive another year or 2. my 50% increased performance bar was not reached.
This is how various 980s stack up. Notice how much faster they are than stock GTX 980. Consider this when you see comparisons against stock 980s - cause not much of anyone who is buying a 980 buys a stock clock 980.
52 -> 57 (avg of those factory OC models) is 10%.
Maybe amds dx10 driver support is better than nvidias?Sure, some games especially older ones will easily hit >60 fps all the time at 1440p on a single top GPU. Newer titles, nope.
@Railven
GameWorks is a real threat, I've always said that. As for actual HairWorks, it ruins performance for little visual gains so even NV users run with it off, I noted that in the steam forums.
In Dying Light, disabling NV DoF, AMD GPUs run 33% faster. It's a no brainer for AMD gamers to turn that effect off. Project Cars just suck on AMD regardless. Just look at the [H] review where they stack GW titles and GW features to gimp AMD. AMD would actually need to be 25-50% faster and more efficient overall just to compete in such a line-up.
Basically people who use AMD have to play most GW titles a few months after release (once its officially patched up & AMD improve their drivers) to get decent performance (look at FC4, ACU etc now). If you're not OK with that, go with NV GPUs. That's the bottom line.
I'm OK with that personally because A) I rarely play titles on launch, I buy it on a steam sale and B) I'm NOT OK with anti-competitive closed source & code obfuscated GameWorks. But I understand people have different views. The way I see it, AMD is more than competitive because GW features are OFF in my gameplay.
Funny enough, Batman: AK which has 4-5 GW features, seems to run just fine on AMD, not sure what happened there!!
On look at you trying to keep the more power\heat meme alive. Good try!Which is enough to match them up fairly equally against fury in sub 4k resolutions.
So you can get one of the good AIB OC'd 980s and match up against Fury at sub 4K resolutions, but be slower at 4k.
Or, you can get Fury and take up more power / make more heat but be faster at 4k.
Or, you can get one of the slower 980s at ~ $480 and bank $70, and probably not be able to tell the difference if you don't run 4k.
Fury does seem marginally better from a performance standpoint with the 4k advantage, but it didn't exactly break new ground. It slots into the market like a high-end GTX 980 but has better 4k performance.
Which is enough to match them up fairly equally against fury in sub 4k resolutions.
So you can get one of the good AIB OC'd 980s and match up against Fury at sub 4K resolutions, but be slower at 4k.
Or, you can get Fury and take up more power / make more heat but be faster at 4k.
Or, you can get one of the slower 980s at ~ $480 and bank $70, and probably not be able to tell the difference if you don't run 4k.
Fury does seem marginally better from a performance standpoint with the 4k advantage, but it didn't exactly break new ground. It slots into the market like a high-end GTX 980 but has better 4k performance.
Im curious.how many are you selling?
I see it the same way you do, I don't understand why everyone is jumping up and down saying how great this card is. Wooooooopy! it can beat a year old card and costs more ,hurray! I guess at this point anythings better than those 290 class cards.:thumbsup: