AMD R9 Fury X reviews!

[sam_816]

wasn't the card supposed to launch today? i can't see it anywhere. amazon has them 'out of stock' but other online retailers aren't even showing them in list...
what's happening? still not on sale or already sold out? also, can someone help me understand why sapphire version is 659 but xfx version is 679 (both on amazon) ?? amd isn't allowing any partner to change anything isn't??
btw how is sapphire's support/service/rma experience?

i hope i can ask these questions one this thread only. do i need to start a new thread?

 

[Creig]

Wasn't the Titan X also voltage locked initially? Although I'm surprised that they don't have that ironed out after making so many "this is an overclockers dream" statements.

 

[YBS1]

Newegg had them earlier.

 

[LTC8K6]

wasn't the card supposed to launch today? i can't see it anywhere. amazon has them 'out of stock' but other online retailers aren't even showing them in list...
what's happening? still not on sale or already sold out? also, can someone help me understand why sapphire version is 659 but xfx version is 679 (both on amazon) ?? amd isn't allowing any partner to change anything isn't??
btw how is sapphire's support/service/rma experience?

i hope i can ask these questions one this thread only. do i need to start a new thread?

They were definitely available online.

Sold out fast.

Probably not very many of them were in stock?

 

[krumme]

Well that was 5-10% less than i expected. Great - then i can buy pro cheaper in a few months. Lol. Fcat looks good and that is important. I am sure drivers will improve perf at least 15%. This is hbm beeing new. 600mm2 without spaceconsuming die area can perf better than this. There is no way 390x is so close to this in half a year.

 

[tviceman]

It's a letdown no matter how it's sliced. Tied at 4k (which doesn't matter since 980 TI and Fury X are still too slow), loses at 1440p, consumes slightly more power, has less vram, and currently has very little overclocking. If noise levels are the only thing a potential buyer cares about at $650, then Fury X is for them. Otherwise, for another $20-30, aftermarket 980 TI's decimate Fury X with similar noise levels.

The fact that it can't overclock well without voltage adjustments isn't good, either. If/when voltage control is unlocked it will still be very difficult to match GM200's 25% overclocks. Even if it can get 25% power consumption it will be flipping breakers and causing grid outages.

With all the hype, secrecy, and $649 price point, it's a failure. I expect Nvidia to rain on Vanilla Fury's launch with a 20 SMX GM200.

 

[pj-]

Even with these reviews I was ready to buy one. Tried to do it on Newegg but was thwarted at the review order page.

I'm all for supporting the underdog at a slight hit to performance but they can't even get a decent number of these in stock? My will is crumbling and I will probably have a 980ti on the way by day's end. :-/

 

[tviceman]

Wasn't the Titan X also voltage locked initially? Although I'm surprised that they don't have that ironed out after making so many "this is an overclockers dream" statements.

Titan X, along with the rest of Maxwell, is basically locked at all times.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Even with these reviews I was ready to buy one. Tried to do it on Newegg but was thwarted at the review order page.

I'm all for supporting the underdog at a slight hit to performance but they can't even get a decent number of these in stock? My will is crumbling and I will probably have a 980ti on the way by day's end. :-/

For the same price you'd be nuts to not buy an aftermarket 980ti. It will be faster, and perform well in brand agnostic games and better in gameworks titles.

I feel like I just watched my team in the last game of the finals miss a shot at the buzzer to win the title, and it was an airball.

Major letdown from the hype train they had rolling.

 

[KingFatty]

$649 price point, it's a failure.

Apparently the card has sold out already? If people are willing to buy, to where it sells out, I guess there is some merit to it? Or perhaps the failure is they didn't have enough stock on hand to satisfy demand?

 

[waldoh]

I am actually impressed with the Fury X.

It manages to trade blows with the 980 Ti (the best card available right now). Considering HBM, a new technology, is incorporated into the card people were expecting huge gains but when has anything first-gen been amazing?

Also lets not forget the Fury X is CHEAPER than the 980 Ti. It is at least $100 cheaper considering the evga 980 Ti hybrid is $750.

The real winner here will be the Fury (non-x). If its the same chip without a AIO water cooler then Sapphire will go crazy with it and it will be the same story as Titan X vs 980 Ti.


FYI. I am currently in the nVidia camp (not fan boy, but major preference).

Edit: The Gsync tax is slowly turning me off, so a much cheaper freesync monitor + fury might be a really nice combo.

Also why do people still insist on benchmarking 4k with a single GPU. Who plays games at those FPS? NO single card can play 4k at ultra or high at a nice smooth fps.

 

[krumme]

The best that could happen for price is this. Bad for amd good for us.

 

[pj-]

For the same price you'd be nuts to not buy an aftermarket 980ti. It will be faster, and perform well in brand agnostic games and better in gameworks titles.

I feel like I just watched my team in the last game of the finals miss a shot at the buzzer to win the title, and it was an airball.

Major letdown from the hype train they had rolling.

I was planning to do a Fury X + 1440p IPS freesync monitor to play the $200 worth of games I bought on steam last week. If I go nvidia I can't do gsync because an equivalent monitor is hundreds more.

I was also planning to play around with GPGPU stuff where the fury x should theoretically curb stomp titan x and 980ti. Did any of the reviews test compute?

I hope for AMD's sake that they can close the gap with driver updates.

 

[Creig]

For the same price you'd be nuts to not buy an aftermarket 980ti. It will be faster, and perform well in brand agnostic games and better in gameworks titles.

I feel like I just watched my team in the last game of the finals miss a shot at the buzzer to win the title, and it was an airball.

Major letdown from the hype train they had rolling.

Yep. All the ingredients are there, but it just wasn't cooked long enough.

 

[Eymar]

@waldoh Fury X is definitely competing. AMD is probably disappointed where it stands compared to 980ti(price and performance wise) as AMD probably thought they could position it price wise somewhat below Titan-X at T-X release time.

 

[Headfoot]

Given that Fury X is tied at 4k, and 4k requires 2 GPUs at least, and XDMA CF scales a little better than SLI, it looks like Fury X might be the absolute top end Multi GPU (3-4x GPU) winner.

It'll be interesting to see the CF vs SLI numbers

 

[flopper]

I am actually impressed with the Fury X.



The real winner here will be the Fury (non-x). If its the same chip without a AIO water cooler then Sapphire will go crazy with it and it will be the same story as Titan X vs 980 Ti.

Its what I am waiting for.

 

[waldoh]

@waldoh Fury X is definitely competing. AMD is probably disappointed where it stands compared to 980ti(price and performance wise) as AMD probably thought they could position it price wise somewhat below Titan-X at T-X release time.

I think NVidia screwed AMD price-wise, but $650 for 980 Ti performance with a AIO water cooler isn't so disappointing. Sure a aftermarket 980 Ti OC will beat the Fury X by 10-15 fps but it will also run hotter, dump all the heat into the case and will be at least $30 more.

We need to wait for the aftermarket Fury (non-x) to see if it turns out to be another TitanX vs 980Ti situation.

Right now all we can compare is the stock Fury X to a stock 980 Ti. It isn't fair to compare an aftermarket card to a stock.

 

[tviceman]

For the same price you'd be nuts to not buy an aftermarket 980ti. It will be faster, and perform well in brand agnostic games and better in gameworks titles.

I feel like I just watched my team in the last game of the finals miss a shot at the buzzer to win the title, and it was an airball.

Major letdown from the hype train they had rolling.

After patches and driver releases in GW games that suffer in day 1 performance, from everything I see in reviews AMD cards perform great (or as well as Nvidia cards). FC3 and 4, Watch Dogs, Witcher 3, Batman AO all run great on either vendor.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The performance on Fury X is enough for me if a price war ensues by the time I'm ready to buy in a few weeks. If not, can't see why I wouldn't go 980ti!

Edit: Forgot about the G-sync tax, I think I'm looking at a Benq XL2730z because of it...so that will factor in...

 

[tviceman]

Right now all we can compare is the stock Fury X to a stock 980 Ti. It isn't fair to compare an aftermarket card to a stock.

It's more than fair. It's the only choice you have at the moment. AMD's cooling solution is superior to anything air so that should be taken into account for all purposes (noise levels, heat dispersion, overclocking, etc.).

 

[The Alias]

I personally think AMD did really well and have a viable alternative for 1440p and upward. It's obvious there are some driver optimizations to be had with the fury and even though it's equal in price to the 980ti, freesync vs gsync make Fury a much better buy as gsyc costs a lot more compared to gsync alternatives. The power consumption is on par with Nvidia alternatives and the cards are a lot shorter, cooler, and quieter than them as well and it exhausts all heat outside of the case as well. AMD just brought gm200 class performance to sff size cases and did it in a cheaper, cooler, and quieter fashion.

 

[waldoh]

It's more than fair. It's the only choice you have at the moment. AMD's cooling solution is superior to anything air so that should be taken into account for all purposes (noise levels, heat dispersion, overclocking, etc.).

I disagree.

Sure it's the only thing available right now, but then any reviewer comparing the Fury X to an aftermarket Ti should include * everywhere and also mention that the cheapest AIO NVidia card is $100 more than the Fury X.

 

[Greenlepricon]

While impressive, the Fury X is not quite good enough for me to just run out and buy. It does compete with the 980ti in most cases, which I can't complain about, but a small price cut would be nice. Hopefully DX12 and drivers give the Fury X a good kick up the ladder. Otherwise I'll be waiting to see how the nano performs.

 

[tviceman]

I disagree.

Sure it's the only thing available right now, but then any reviewer comparing the Fury X to an aftermarket Ti should include * everywhere and also mention that the cheapest AIO NVidia card is $100 more than the Fury X.

Which is why I said Fury X's cooing is superior to AIB open air-cooling, even the impressive $680 EVGA SC+. It's 3 DB louder, but dumps the heat back into the case. Oh, it' also 22% faster out of the box than Fury X at 1440p. It should all be taken into consideration. And, when considered, water cooling is not a worthwhile trade off at that price, IMO. After market air coolers are more than sufficient at cooling with low noise (barely louder than Fury X) and only people with extremely bad cases can't take consider an open-air cooled video card.