AMD R9 Fury reviews!

[raghu78]

Come on now, happy medium.

Hawaii is now killing big Kepler, so no not anything is better than the 290 class cards. Just like Tahiti killed the GK104. Pretty bad if you feel like you have to exaggerate the age of the 980 to make AMD sound bad. Fury is going to end up faster than big Maxwell too. Mark my words.

we all know that the Kepler is definitely being neglected drivers wise to keep Maxwell very attractive. Nvidia is also using Gameworks to make its latest gen even more attractive against their older gen.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc-test/4/

Thats why you see GTX 780 Ti losing to even R9 290 nowadays. I would not be surprised if a 12-15 months down the road the Fury X is faster than GTX 980 Ti. Once Pascal launches I am sure the cycle of gimping last gen will repeat itself.

 

[shady28]

An AIB OC GTX 980 will consume more power than the reference one.

Example: Look below. The difference is 18watts on average.... no biggie

Nice cherry pick. 18 Watts you say?

 

[SPBHM]

I don't get it, why they decided to price it $50 higher, sure it's a little faster, but they have to be realistic, the 980 is a Geforce and it's better in some regards (power usage is a big win for example)... $499 or even less would make this a big win, for the price they choose it's just... OK... better than fury X vs 980 Ti, but still, not quite there...


in any case, this card makes me think they should allow aircooled Fury X ASAP, specially considering the pump noise drama.

 

[AtenRa]

I don't get it, why they decided to price it $50 higher, sure it's a little faster, but they have to be realistic, the 980 is a Geforce and it's better in some regards (power usage is a big win for example)... $499 or even less would make this a big win, for the price they choose it's just... OK... better than fury X vs 980 Ti, but still, not quite there...

1: They dont want to be viewed as the cheap alternative.
2: They dont want to engage in to a price war.
3. They dont after high market share but profitability.

 

[Silverforce11]

Power usage is so close its not even worth mentioning for this reason alone:

AT, [H], Toms, etc, especially the ASUS model, total system power is higher on Fury by 11-20% (AT has ~20%, [H] as ~11%). Performance delta is ~10% at 1440p and 15-20% at 4K.

Thus, it uses more power, but its faster. The perf/w gap isn't a big one like prior gen.

 

[x3sphere]

we all know that the Kepler is definitely being neglected drivers wise to keep Maxwell very attractive. Nvidia is also using Gameworks to make its latest gen even more attractive against their older gen.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc-test/4/

Thats why you see GTX 780 Ti losing to even R9 290 nowadays. I would not be surprised if a 12-15 months down the road the Fury X is faster than GTX 980 Ti. Once Pascal launches I am sure the cycle of gimping last gen will repeat itself.

Probably. But problem is for AMD, this doesn't really sell cards. People buy for the here and now, not 12-15 months later when they've moved on to something else. I was hoping Fury drivers would be more optimized out of the gate.

At any rate maybe the Fury will really shine in DX12 as some are predicting. We'll see.

 

[SPBHM]

1: They dont want to be viewed as the cheap alternative.
2: They dont want to engage in to a price war.
3. They dont after high market share but profitability.

only good explanation is limited supply, but still, it's a shame for the consumer,

also realistically it's competing with a much simpler card and AMD excelled at being the cheap alternative, people buy 290s because of that, if the price is the same as NV... good luck.

Power usage is so close its not even worth mentioning for this reason alone:

AT, [H], Toms, etc, especially the ASUS model, total system power is higher on Fury by 11-20% (AT has ~20%, [H] as ~11%). Performance delta is ~10% at 1440p and 15-20% at 4K.

Thus, it uses more power, but its faster. The perf/w gap isn't a big one like prior gen.

not so close here

a lot better than Hawaii perf per watt, but still a little to far, and disappointing considering how much HBM is saving.

 

[3DVagabond]

Decent cards at rotten prices.wait a bit.Forever maybe.

Agreed. All cards, both sides.

 

[ShintaiDK]

On look at you trying to keep the more power\heat meme alive. Good try!

So will the factory oc 980s use the same power as the throttling reference 980s?

Still GTX980 doesnt throttle. Just a matter of boost.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/21

Nice FUD try tho.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Fury looks quite good to me. Add in the fact that it's brand new and it may need a few more driver tweaks to get the most from it, and the possibility it will perform better in DX 12 games, seems like it may be worth the extra money. Worst comes to worst you still get a card faster than a 980 as it is.

 

[3DVagabond]

1: They dont want to be viewed as the cheap alternative.
2: They dont want to engage in to a price war.
3. They dont after high market share but profitability.

4. They're selling out.

 

[Ed1]

AMD biggest problem is the 980 been out for 9+ months , so there real late to the table.
Many have bought cards in this performance area, even on AMD side (290x).
So were talking a lot more money for little performance , it going to be very hard for them to gain market share now IMO.

 

[Spanners]

Still GTX980 doesnt throttle. Just a matter of boost.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/21

Nice FUD try tho.

To say it's a "matter of boost" and therefore say it doesn't throttle is just pointless semantic difference. It doesn't maintain it's maximum clocks therefore it throttles.

Directly from the link you just posted. "...what we are going to see is that GTX 980 still throttles. The question then is by how much."

 

[ShintaiDK]

To say it's a "matter of boost" and therefore say it doesn't throttle is just pointless semantic difference. It doesn't maintain it's maximum clocks therefore it throttles.

Directly from the link you just posted. "...what we are going to see is that GTX 980 still throttles. The question then is by how much."

Throttle means its under baseclock. Its not.

So say it throttles dynamic boost clocks is silly. And what when it is over the boost specification?

 

[Silverforce11]

not so close here

a lot better than Hawaii perf per watt, but still a little to far, and disappointing considering how much HBM is saving.

Just the ASUS Fury model, designed for lower TDP (213W TDP instead of default 275W). The Sapphire is ref Fury X so it gets similar numbers. Thought you people ought to know that already, plenty of reviews have covered it.

I think its amazing ASUS managed to take Fury and run it without throttling clocks and pull 50-70W less than standard ref design.

 

[Spanners]

Throttle means its under baseclock. Its not.

Where did you find that definition of throttling? As I said previously it's just a matter of what marketing terminology you wish to attach to it. Calling the clocks above a certain speed "boost" clocks is just great way to re-frame things to make throttling seem less like throttling.

The reviewer in the link you posted understands that a reduction in clock speed to maintain thermal or acoustic performance is still throttling regardless of what you've defined as boost or base. I'm not implying it's in anyway a bad thing, I understand it's purpose, just that it occurs with the 980.

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't even get how its possible for ASUS to cut down power use so much while maintain peak performance without dropping clocks in games??

Isolated GPU power, peak gaming:

[H]'s System Power:

AT's System Power in C3:

Perf/w in C3 is outstanding:

With a good PCB design an good chips, it seems Fury Nano's claim of greater than R290X performance at 2x Perf/W may be possible.

 

[nurturedhate]

Where did you find that definition of throttling? As I said previously it's just a matter of what marketing terminology you wish to attach to it. Calling the clocks above a certain speed "boost" clocks is just great way to re-frame things to make throttling seem less like throttling.

The reviewer in the link you posted understands that a reduction in clock speed to maintain thermal or acoustic performance is still throttling regardless of what you've defined as boost or base. I'm not implying it's in anyway a bad thing, I understand it's purpose, just that it occurs with the 980.

No, no, no.. You are missing the whole point. If an AMD card fails to maintain its top speed then it throttles. If an Nvidia card fails to maintain its top speed then it is a function of its boost and is Nvidia protecting "your" investment. See, they are trying to help you.

 

[tviceman]

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.

A 50 watt explosion! O.M.G. My 1475/7900mhz GTX980 + mildly OC'd 4770k draws 330 watts max at the wall.

Strix Fury is $100 more than Zotac 980. 980 OC performance >= Fury OC performance.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

A 50 watt explosion! O.M.G. My 1475mhz GTX980 + mildly OC'd 4770k draws 330 watts max at the wall.

I could easily say my 2500k and r9 290 draws 330 watts at the wall especially with no proof, not saying what game or benchmark, and not proving its stable.

You very well could be right, but your post is high on claims and lacking in proof.

 

[tviceman]

I could easily say my 2500k and r9 290 draws 330 watts at the wall especially with no proof, not saying what game or benchmark, and not proving its stable.

You very well could be right, but your post is high on claims and lacking in proof.

Are you seriously calling me out? You actually want me to take a phone video of my power reader and my rig running a vsync off loop of high demanding game benchmark?

 

[Shmee]

I am surprised Crossfire was not tested in AT review.

 

[monstercameron]

I don't even get how its possible for ASUS to cut down power use so much while maintain peak performance without dropping clocks in games??

Isolated GPU power, peak gaming:

[H]'s System Power:

AT's System Power in C3:

Perf/w in C3 is outstanding:

With a good PCB design an good chips, it seems Fury Nano's claim of greater than R290X performance at 2x Perf/W may be possible.

Auto awesome! Maybe?

 

[sam_816]

Are you seriously calling me out? You actually want me to take a phone video of my power reader and my rig running a vsync off loop of high demanding game benchmark?

Lol y r u sounding surprised and well, insulted?

I don't understand why people get so personal about these things.

1. You don't have to prove anything to anyone here.

2. If you don't, then such comments are uncalled for as well.

Simply ignore him or simply post a vid/pic..

 

[railven]

EDIT:

You know what, these reviews are too far apart to really come to any conclusion. Review it I saw the Ref 980 power load was 60W off from the first review I used to the second, so clearly they've changed alot of things they used during the 8 month time span.

Conclusion:
Fury is still well priced