AMD R9 Fury reviews!

[kawi6rr]

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.

Considering the R9 290x/290 were slower then the 780ti/780 when first launched but are now quite a bit faster with consistent driver updates from AMD I see these new cards being faster in the near future as well. It's a no brainer for me, looks like I'll be replacing my Trixx-OC 290 with the Fury in the near future.

 

[Enigmoid]

Nothing special vs. the 980.

People are forgetting that aftermarket cards are being compared to a reference 980. If you compare both aftermarket 980s and aftermarket Furys the 980 will pull ahead (aftermarket cards give ~10% and up to 15% better performance for the 980) taking the 980 above the Fury at 1440p and well above at 1080p. All while the 980 uses less power and costs less.

Aftermarket 980's are currently $480 with open box models significantly less.

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?usa...n=ZT-90204-10P&manufacture=Zotac&promoid=1371

$459.

Sorry AMD but this card is in the same place as the Fury X vs. 980 TI if not worse.

 

[wand3r3r]

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 .

The 970 didn't have an official reference version (later they actually did with bb selling it), did it prevent the comparison to the reference (throttling) 290? Did you complain?

 

[Ed1]

The 970 didn't have an official reference version (later they actually did with bb selling it), did it prevent the comparison to the reference (throttling) 290? Did you complain?

what are you talking about ,I didn't mention throttling (don't think either is doing that, Fury or 980 ).
What does 970 have to do with it .
My point being the Fury is priced higher than 980 but if we compare what most would buy (not many buy ref 980 unless water cooling it ) , that 980 have a lot of headroom compared to a ref one .
I am sure there will be more reviews and OC vers OC on each to see whats going on .

I have no stake in it, wouldn't buy either one personally .

 

[sam_816]

The 970 didn't have an official reference version (later they actually did with bb selling it), did it prevent the comparison to the reference (throttling) 290? Did you complain?

why are you wasting your breath mate?
every review mentions good n bad things about a product. people read what they want.

technology is ever evolving.. only an idiot declares a product as success or failure within a week(or 2) of its launch.

 

[gamervivek]

The hardocp review is comical where 980 would beat or be at par with fury with gameworks and get pummeled without it.

Dying Light.

Performance jumped up on the ASUS STRIX R9 Fury. The Fury is now 31% faster than the GeForce GTX 980. The setting holding back performance seems to be the NVIDIA Depth of Field in this game. The GTX 980 can render it much better, the Fury not so much.

and Far Cry 4.

The ASUS STRIX R9 Fury is 18% faster than the GeForce GTX 980 at this lower setting.

Gold, Jerry, Gold! :awe:

 

[Ares202]

Just my 2 cents

The R9 Fury is well placed in price, however to decimate 980 sales it should be placed at the same price point. I'm guessing HBM and the very large die prevents it from being profitable at that level.

The 980 TI is still the better option unless you simply can't afford the extra $100. Most people who are already paying $549 can afford $649

 

[Stuka87]

The problem with people saying the Fury Pro is 50-70 dollars more, is that they are comparing it to the rather horrible reference version of the 980. 980's with open air coolers are all 515-600 depending on cooler and clocks. Now this does mean some of those 980's are faster.

Just saying its not right to compare an AIB cooled card to a reference blower card for price.

 

[96Firebird]

As long as the cards are run at reference settings and those results are included in the benchmarks, I see no problem with using aftermarket cards...

Aftermarket vs. aftermarket should be reserved for a separate review.

 

[iiiankiii]

A GTX 980 at $450 is an attractive product. I think that's where the GTX 980 would do best. It has enough of a performance jump from the GTX 970 (and without the 3.5GB crap) to justify the $120 jump from $330. Once overclocked, the GTX 980 should offer similar performance to an OC Fury Pro at 1080/1440 for $100 less while consuming less power (a bonus but not a deal breaker either way). I like the GTX 980 @ $450. It makes choosing a Fury Pro a bit tougher. BUT, as it stands, the GTX 980 is still at $500.

For 4k gaming, I think the Fury Pro makes more financial sense than the GTX 980TI/Fury X. It offers similar performance at 4k. Of course, you still need 2 of the Fury Pro to make 4k gaming worth while. Plus, once drivers mature a bit for Fiji, I expect it to pull away from the GTX 980 at 1080/1440. (Disclaimer: we shall see)

In the end, I'm not really too happy with the amount of performance (or lack there of) we're getting this generation from both AMD/Nvidia. It's a bit lackluster.

 

[railven]

The problem with people saying the Fury Pro is 50-70 dollars more, is that they are comparing it to the rather horrible reference version of the 980. 980's with open air coolers are all 515-600 depending on cooler and clocks. Now this does mean some of those 980's are faster.

Just saying its not right to compare an AIB cooled card to a reference blower card for price.

Huh?

$480 for this Zotac with 3-fan open cooler and factory OC:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500361
EDIT: The other cards just for reference:
EVGA 04G-P4-2981-KR GeForce GTX 980 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 SLI Support Video Card
$514.99
$499.99
$479.99 after $20.00 rebate card

EVGA 04G-P4-2983-KR GeForce GTX 980 Superclocked ACX 2.0 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 SLI Support Video Card
$524.99
$507.99
$487.99 after $20.00 rebate card

GIGABYTE GV-N980WF3OC-4GD GeForce GTX 980 4GB 256-Bit DDR5 PCI Express 3.0 WINDFORCE 3X GAMING Graphics Card
$499.99
$489.99 after $10.00 rebate card

[OOOPS, I lied, 2 <$480, 2 under <$490 after rebates.]


And there are 3 other cards <$480 after rebates all including the Batmans.


I think the Fury is priced well against its competition. The only metric AMD seems to continue to get stomped on is power usage, but that seems to only matter to people like three other people beside me.

The Fury launch is basically what the Fury X should have been. a decisive win over it's competitor. I would buy a Fury without hesitation.

 

[iiiankiii]

As long as the cards are run at reference settings and those results are included in the benchmarks, I see no problem with using aftermarket cards...

Aftermarket vs. aftermarket should be reserved for a separate review.

The thing is, we all know the reference design cooler likes to throttle speed. Even if they kept it at 'stock' speed, it still wouldn't have the same thermal, noise and performance characteristic of an actual reference design. The reference design would do worst in all metric (thermal, noise, performance),.

 

[Ed1]

The problem with people saying the Fury Pro is 50-70 dollars more, is that they are comparing it to the rather horrible reference version of the 980. 980's with open air coolers are all 515-600 depending on cooler and clocks. Now this does mean some of those 980's are faster.

Just saying its not right to compare an AIB cooled card to a reference blower card for price.

980 are 519-530 right now MSI gaming, GIGABYTE G1, Asus strix, EVGA etc , unless you go crazy with the like's of Kingpin .

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ideo-Cards-Devices_1-_-VisNav-_-Performance_2

 

[96Firebird]

The thing is, we all know the reference design cooler likes to throttle speed. Even if they kept it at 'stock' speed, it still wouldn't have the same thermal, noise and performance characteristic of an actual reference design. The reference design would do worst in all metric (thermal, noise, performance),.

Are you talking about the reference 980 throttling? I'll be honest, I have no idea how it performs, but you are right about the power/heat/noise comparisons... One of the upsides to not having a reference cooler I guess.

I still believe aftermarket vs aftermarket (clockspeeds) shouldn't be in a launch review, just wish there were more reviews that did these after the launch review.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I got a reference superclocked. And it doesnt throttle. Its just a matter of how much boost.

 

[raghu78]

Even though Fury is priced better than Fury X its still in a difficult spot against custom 980 cards like MSI GTX 980 Gaming and Gigabyte GTX 980 G1 Gaming which are atleast 8-10% faster than GTX 980 ref on avg.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_980_G1_Gaming/27.html

These cards are selling for USD 520.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127834
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125682

These cards overclock like demons hitting 1500+ Mhz easily and showing further gains of 10-12%. So effectively Fury's 10-12% lead at 1440p is enough to just edge ahead of the 980 OC cards and the lower OC headroom means that GTX 980 cards at 1500+ Mhz will be on par or faster than Fury at 1100 Mhz at 1440p.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX_980_G1_Gaming/30.html

980 still will be more power efficient and so its a very difficult situation for AMD. Sapphire though did a very good job as we have come to expect with the phenomenal Tri-X cooler. bravo Sapphire. :thumbsup:

AMD is going to suffer for the next 12-15 months as both its CPU and GPU divisions are completely outclassed by the competition. Its sad but true.

 

[tviceman]

I think the Fury is priced well against its competition. The only metric AMD seems to continue to get stomped on is power usage, but that seems to only matter to people like three other people beside me.

Overclocking. Fiji gets stomped on vs. Maxwell when it comes to overclocking.

The Fury launch is basically what the Fury X should have been. a decisive win over it's competitor. I would buy a Fury without hesitation.

The Fury is definitely better positioned than Fury X, but my opinion is that Fury at $550 is best for those that are going to go CFX right away for 4K gaming and get the added benefit of better CFX scaling and 4K performance.

Otherwise, 1080p 60/120/144hz and 1440p users are still better off going with a GTX980 for the better overclocking (which means better overall performance vs. Fury OC) and money savings.

 

[railven]

Overclocking. Fiji gets stomped on vs. Maxwell when it comes to overclocking.

Oh, I agree, but there are still some people who won't overclock (for whatever reason that is their right). OC/OV isn't the end all for some folk.

Maxwell will need that OC to get close the gap on Fury, it seems to me. Then we get back to cost and other metrics, which will favor NV.

The Fury is definitely better positioned than Fury X, but my opinion is that Fury at $550 is best for those that are going to go CFX right away for 4K gaming and get the added benefit of better CFX scaling and 4K performance.

Otherwise, 1080p 60/120/144hz and 1440p users are still better off going with a GTX980 for the better overclocking (which means better overall performance vs. Fury OC) and money savings.

BUt at this point 980 is already almost a year old and frankly put, Kepler's treatment is still fresh in my mind - I'm sure it's in someone else. Personally, I'd rather buy the year model IF it's faster overall. The other metrics while useful still come with the handicap that the product is almost a year old and well refined. Hate to say the "API of the FOOTAH!" but driver improvements can change the landscape more in favor of Fury. Frankly, NV needs to refresh the $500 price point anyways, and now is a good time as ever to do so. Don't you think?

@$550 the card is well priced, it's not amazingly priced, or stunningly priced, but it's well priced. It isn't like the $650 Fury X which craps on itself trying to beat the similar priced GTX 980 Ti. Here the Fury commands it's price over the $500 MSRP 980. BUT, that price is liquid and if it moves any lower and more widely, then of course that changes. Haha.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I have problems seeing the segment for Fury.

It seems its a GTX980 competitor. But its also a 390X competitor. And both are cheaper and offers things the Fury cant. -100W, +4GB etc.

 

[tg2708]

Driver improvements on AMD's side will help fury leverage the benefits of an overclocked maxwell. While its a given that maxwell overclocks better than any of AMD's offering as time has shown the latter has caught up with nvidia cards with driver optimizations, so a heavily overclocked would have been needed to match or surpass them at that point. In other words if nvidia can no longer squeeze more performance out of GM204 it will fall even more behind the fury once drivers begin to mature. Fury is still in its infancy so time will tell which is the better card overall. Fury might even match or surpass the 980ti judging solely on how things went for the past generations of nvidia cards. The only meaningful trump card at this point is that nvidia cards handles power consumption alot better than AMD.

 

[tg2708]

I have problems seeing the segment for Fury.

It seems its a GTX980 competitor. But its also a 390X competitor. And both are cheaper and offers things the Fury cant. -100W, +4GB etc.

True, I was thinking something similar too but I questioned the 390x's relevance when the actually competitor to the 980 was fury pro. Does AMD think with driver optimizations the fury will be 980ti's true competitor while the fury x sits on the highest pedestal until pascal comes out?

 

[iiiankiii]

Overclocking. Fiji gets stomped on vs. Maxwell when it comes to overclocking.



The Fury is definitely better positioned than Fury X, but my opinion is that Fury at $550 is best for those that are going to go CFX right away for 4K gaming and get the added benefit of better CFX scaling and 4K performance.

Otherwise, 1080p 60/120/144hz and 1440p users are still better off going with a GTX980 for the better overclocking (which means better overall performance vs. Fury OC) and money savings.

Nah, the GTX 980 @ $450 is good. A GTX 980 @ $500 isn't that attractive. I would rather grab the GUARANTEE performance right now in the Fury Pro. Overclocking is a bonus, not a guarantee. That extra $50 guarantees you better performance across the board. It's priced where it should be. Albeit, not great from a price/performance metric.

Plus, if we were to based our assumption on history of all new GPU archs, I expect another 10-20% in performance increase via mature drivers throughout the Fiji's life cycle. Of course, this is a bonus, not a guarantee.

The only thing the Fury Pro has against it is the 'AMD' logo. That's the truth. Nvidia cards tend to command a 'premium' price bump for the exact same performance.

 

[Hitman928]

Performance summary charts from Sweclockers (http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20792-amd-radeon-r9-fury-fran-asus-och-sapphire/17#content):

 

[crisium]

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

Am I seeing better frame times with the Fury over the 980 overall?

 

[Xcobra]

AMD is going to suffer for the next 12-15 months as both its CPU and GPU divisions are completely outclassed by the competition. Its sad but true.

Outclassed in the GPU division? Good joke, mate :thumbsup: