@wege12
It's practically crap at 1080p. I wouldn't say its crap. I've been able to run every game I've played so far at max settings 60 fps. However, the 980ti is better due to its stronger front end.
Okay at 1440p. "Okay" is underselling it a bit. Its great at 1440p. Fury X trades blows with 980ti at this resolution.
Too weak for 4K despite decent performance. You really need 2 GPU for 4K. This is absolutely true, but the same is also said for the 980ti.
And low OC potential compared to the 980Ti. No arguement here. I'm only able to obtain a 13% OC on mine.
When NV overclocks better, overclocking is THE metric. I disagree here because even if most buyers of flagship cards OC, there are still some who won't. Plus no two GPUs OC the same. So everyone who purchases a flagship will automatically get stock clock performance. It's a variable whether or not the user OC's and/or how high they can OC.
I'm not saying OC'ing abilities shouldn't be compared, because they should. But IMHO, stock clocks should always be the metric as its guaranteed everyone will receive that level of performance.
Back during the 7800 and 7900 series, those SKUs often did 50% OC, but "overclocking is a niche" apparently. Those cards were released at lower clocks to begin with. Also, GCN is more dense, with hardware designed for DX12, which is a negative when it comes to OC'ing.
Still, Fury X has no excuse being priced close to custom 980Ti that's 20% faster out of the box. I believe the Fury X is now less expensive when looking at its MSRP. I think its also worth mentioning how much more capital Nvidia has compared to AMD to invest in R/D. This puts AMD at a disadvantage from the get go which, to me, makes the Fury X all that more respectable.
Of course, all of this is my opinion and is up for debate