AMD R9 Fury reviews!

[tviceman]

If a cost-conscience enthusiast is looking between the 980 and Fury, just like in the 980 TI vs. Fury X case, it's just as tough a sell for AMD, IMO.

980 vs. Fury: Fury is noticeably faster at 1440p but consumes noticeably more power while the 980 overclocks way better to essentially match or surpass Fury at 1440p, 980 is up to $70 cheaper, comes with free game.

 

[Despoiler]

I'm wondering if the voltage will ever be unlocked. I'm curious if it's intentionally limited due to actual physical limitations (not much headroom, so why let cards fry), new policies, or if it's just a low priority in general.

If they add voltage neutering like NV as a feature I will be disappointed. I'll still reserve judgment until we get official confirmation.

Ahh the voltage isn't locked.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5110209&postcount=4

From Unwinder

It is not a question of "strange decision by AMD" at all. It is a question of very limited AMD ADL API. NVIDIA cards simply have unified GPIO/VID based voltage control functions inside NVAPI, so it is very easy and fast to support voltage control on new cards (within driver allowed voltage control range of course) or even provide voltage control for future cards without even seeing them.
It doesn't apply to AMD. To support voltage control on new cards developers first need to implement low-level I2C aceess support for each new GPI family (which can be troublesome for new GPU architecture), then provide support for each new voltage controller model. That's not the task that can be done without hardware.

Back on topic. Both Fury cards look like winners. Each have unique strengths. You can choose stupid quiet or better power consumption. Glad I waited rather than impulsing on a Fury X.

 

[wand3r3r]

Ahh the voltage isn't locked.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5110209&postcount=4

From Unwinder



Back on topic. Both Fury cards look like winners. Each have unique strengths. You can choose stupid quiet or better power consumption. Glad I waited rather than impulsing on a Fury X.

Thanks!

Now I'll be very interested to see what it can do.

 

[railven]

This is how you launch a Radeon. If it eats more power, that's fine 7970 did also compared to GTX 680, but in doing so it has to be faster. Fermi vs Cypress, etc, etc.

That Sapphy cooler is amazing. I'd love to see that on a Fury X, see if it can keep it cool. Acoustically it's better than the current CLC used on the Fury X.

AMD taking yet another page from NV. Bring custom coolers to a ref cooler party. HD 6870 getting it's revenge. Haha.

 

[happy medium]

If a cost-conscience enthusiast is looking between the 980 and Fury, just like in the 980 TI vs. Fury X case, it's just as tough a sell for AMD, IMO.

980 vs. Fury: Fury is noticeably faster at 1440p but consumes noticeably more power while the 980 overclocks way better to essentially match or surpass Fury at 1440p, 980 is up to $70 cheaper, comes with free game.

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:

 

[Grooveriding]

AMD finally scored here. The card decimates the 980. They should release some Fury X air cooled cards as well. They probably could sell them cheaper without that water cooler on them.

 

[railven]

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:

Benchmarks are showing it to be a good card. AMD really learned from the 290X debacle. If they can't make a good cooler in house, let their partners handle it.

I expect a price cut on their direct competitors as a direct response which is a win for consumers. If I hadn't already snagged a 980 Ti, I would have definintely gone for that Sapphy Fury. The design (dat backplate!) is just amazing.

I wonder how stock will be?

EDIT: DOesn't seem to show up at Newegg/AMazon/Microcenter yet. This another 10AM PST release kind of thing?

 

[happy medium]

The card decimates the 980.

Are you trolling?

From the Anandtech review.

"and in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance. This doesn’t make either card a notably better value, but makes the R9 Fury a very reasonable alternative to the GTX 980 on a price/performance basis.

WHat do you think will happen if you overclock both cards?
I would bet performance is dead even at best while the gtx980 cost 70$ less.

 

[wand3r3r]

Are you trolling?

From the Anandtech review.

"and in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance. This doesn’t make either card a notably better value, but makes the R9 Fury a very reasonable alternative to the GTX 980 on a price/performance basis.

Did you forget to note the 4k 18% win? Mighty selective cut there.

Alternatively drop two in crossfire and it's easily in 980 ti SLI territory, much less the 980 would be slaughtered.

Edit. Where is the TPU review?

 

[happy medium]

note the 4k

Ah, if it were me I would use 2 high end cards for 4k, not 1 midrange card.

There is one sure way to see if AMD scored with this card. If Nvidia drops the price of the gtx980 below the 479$ its at now. I don't see that happening for a 8% increase in performance @ 1440p, and its not gonna happen because the .004% of enthusiast @ 4k buy this card over a gtx980.

 

[railven]

Did you forget to note the 4k 18% win? Mighty selective cut there.

Alternatively drop two in crossfire and it's easily in 980 ti SLI territory, much less the 980 would be slaughtered.

Edit. Where is the TPU review?

Waiting for that too. Yesterday they had some MySQL errors.


On the comparison of 4K, as someone who is now using downsampling more often, I use a 1440p monitor, but if benches show the card I'm debating buying >60 FPS by a good margin I move on to the 4K scores.

Screw lathering MSAA on to get that value, up the resolution!

 

[Gikaseixas]

I would bet performance is dead even at best while the gtx980 cost 70$ less

$50 more (official retail price), $70 is for the ASUS unit
performance varies from 8% to 18% depending on resolution, me thinks it's worth it, plus that almost silent gaming load noise just makes it more appealing. Stop hating

 

[Ire123]

Great cards, I would really like to purchase a pair but the lack of HDMI 2.0 kills it for me. Anyone have anymore info on when those dp1.2 to hdmi 2.0 adpators will be out?

 

[Gikaseixas]

There is one sure way to see if AMD scored with this card. If Nvidia drops the price of the gtx980 below the 479$

Wrong
Card will be successful if it generates good revenue for the company, in other words, sells decently ya know? Professional reviews are giving it positive ratings

 

[wand3r3r]

Ah, if it were me I would use 2 high end cards for 4k, not 1 midrange card.

There is one sure way to see if AMD scored with this card. If Nvidia drops the price of the gtx980 below the 479$ its at now. I don't see that happening for a 8% increase in performance @ 1440p, and its not gonna happen because the .004% of enthusiast @ 4k buy this card over a gtx980.

The price range isn't for 99% of people.

Using statistics doesn't downplay the fact that 4k users have 4 choices, with the cheapest at $1100 which seemingly will keep up or possibly even beat the $1300+ alternatives (980 ti/titan x SLI and Fury X).

I agree that this launch isn't ground breaking, hardly any have been since probably the 290 bringing ~titan performance from $1000->$400. However, for those of us actually interested in high resolution this is the best "value" as well as the smoothest dual card solution (assuming from fury x).

As a potential buyer, I am very interested in this launch, even more so than the higher priced alternatives.

 

[happy medium]

$50 more (official retail price), $70 is for the ASUS unit
performance varies from 8% to 18% depending on resolution, me thinks it's worth it, plus that almost silent gaming load noise just makes it more appealing. Stop hating

The Hardocp review seems to agree with the ANandtech review and my conclusion....

Quote:
"That means the AMD Radeon R9 Fury is $50 to $70 more expensive than a custom GTX 980, for performance that is on par most of the time with the settings in games turned up.

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury pricing is all wrong. AMD needs to drop this price if it wants to sell these video cards, but considering it looks like there will be little to no stock for a while, we guess it really makes no difference"

 

[x3sphere]

I'm not impressed. At stock, the card is a great contender, but OC to OC it looks like the 980 Ti still offers far better performance for the extra $100 at 1440p.

I'm just not seeing how that's exciting. The Sapphire's cooling is amazing too, why is the OC so locked down??

 

[iiiankiii]

The Hardocp review seems to agree with the ANandtech review and my conclusion....

Quote:
"That means the AMD Radeon R9 Fury is $50 to $70 more expensive than a custom GTX 980, for performance that is on par most of the time with the settings in games turned up.



The AMD Radeon R9 Fury pricing is all wrong. AMD needs to drop this price if it wants to sell these video cards, but considering it looks like there will be little to no stock for a while, we guess it really makes no difference"

nah, I don't care about HardOp. All they use are GameWorks tittles. I understand there will be games with GameWorks, but there will be a lot more without GameWorks. I want to see variety in their benchmark.

 

[Head1985]

Pcper review.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Radeon-R9-Fury-4GB-Review-CrossFire-Results

 

[Gikaseixas]

The Hardocp review seems to agree with the ANandtech review and my conclusion....

Quote:
"That means the AMD Radeon R9 Fury is $50 to $70 more expensive than a custom GTX 980, for performance that is on par most of the time with the settings in games turned up.

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury pricing is all wrong. AMD needs to drop this price if it wants to sell these video cards, but considering it looks like there will be little to no stock for a while, we guess it really makes no difference"

GTX 980 spent most of it's life being compared to 290X and had a similar performance delta for much more that $50, if i'm not mistaken $150 and people still bought it because it was cooler, less noisier, faster you name it but now that and AMD is the same to the 980, the price is wrong WOW

 

[tviceman]

GTX 980 spent most of it's life being compared to 290X and had a similar performance delta for much more that $50, if i'm not mistaken $150 and people still bought it because it was cooler, less noisier, faster you name it but now that and AMD is the same to the 980, the price is wrong WOW

GTX 980 was 20% faster than 290x out of the gate, is currently ~10-15% faster at 1440p, overclocks way better than the 290x, and consumes way, way less power. After 290x's prices dropped off a cliff it had significantly better perf/$, but that was the single only thing it had going for it.

Nice try, but ....not really.

 

[tviceman]

Did you forget to note the 4k 18% win? Mighty selective cut there.

If neither Fury X nor 980 TI can drive 4k at very high settings, even without AA, consistently, then Fury and 980 will just do that much worse.

1440p and 1080p 120/144hz are where the most meaningful comparisons are at. If you want to talk about CFX and SLI, then make your arguments but I'll refer to this: http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/38134-crossfire-and-sli-market-is-just-300-000-units

At 1080p 120hz / 1440p, 980 max OC will match or be faster than Fury OC for $70 less + a free game.

 

[stahlhart]

Moving to Video Cards & Graphics.
-- stahlhart

 

[Qwertilot]

Hard OCP make the same point about it vs the 390x, which definitely isn't gameworks

Of course (as they also say) - with the production amount seemingly so small - the pricing simply isn't terribly relevant. It does genuinely look like these things are principally about getting mindshare.

Maybe replacing the 390/X at some point when they can produce more HBM, or maybe they'll hit the die shrink first.

 

[Ed1]

Its faster than ref 980, but none of reviews had 3rd party 980, which IMO it should, as there no ref Fury's .

980 get big boost with 3rd party and how they clock high w/o raising temps/power to much.

I guess we have to wait on those results . I think it will be a wash, or very dependent on game/app .