Disappointed by AMD

[railven]

It's also an outlier vs the rest. Perhaps they are not including the pump and radiator fan power usage?

No kidding. 30 reviews, 29 show it using more power, one doesn't.

"See, it uses less power."

 

[tential]

I dunno, at least with TWIMTBP I got something to play with.

"Wait and See" it's 4 months after my upgrade window opened up, I could have had a 980 Ti sitting in my rig all happily, but I gave AMD the benefit of the doubt because "Radeon! YEAH!!!!"

Welps, now I got to wait for DX12...

Then for DX12 games...

By then GTX 1080 Ti "u wot m8" Edition is wrecking things and Fury XXX is probably going to use more power, be slower, and run hotter.

And if you sense any bitterness in my post, it's because I did get hyped and I did want Fury X to be awesome. So good I'd have zero regrets buying it. But I can't buy it, not knowing for $30 more I can get a card that is faster with more vram AND uses less power.

I'm unhappy and disappointed but if it had been a success I would have bought it day 1.
Now, I've waited months for this card and realize I still didn't beat the 3 games I was playing. Maybe I don't even need a new card at all if I can't even finish the games from 2012.

At this rate may buy something else entirely. Saw some good washer/dryer combo and always wanted a premium set for the way too overstuffed closet I have. Amd would have gotten my 650 but meh, maybe may tag or LG will get 1k+ now.

 

[n0x1ous]

Ehh I just grabbed a Fury X. I'm dead set on using AIO cooling on GPU's so for me its $100 cheaper than the comparable 980ti hybrid. Ill keep the extra $100 for a little less performance.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's always been... "Wait and see!"™

I get CPU flashbacks from that

 

[tential]

Yup, I was hoping the train would end in a good place as well. My 7950 has served me well but with the move to 1440p, I need something with more grunt. As soon as more custom 980 Ti cards are more plentiful, I'll be picking one up.

Gigabyte g1 is like 690? I think that's the best deal out but I don't know 100%. I just like that cooler a lot. I'm a 7950 user as well but I want to downsample. Thing is I really like vsr. I dunno if I'll be as impressed with vsr

 

[Eymar]

Now, I've waited months for this card and realize I still didn't beat the 3 games I was playing. Maybe I don't even need a new card at all if I can't even finish the games from 2012.

Good call, if cards don't meet your needs then wait. It is easy to get caught up in new card mania, but going from high end videocard to buying washer\dryer and closets is a first

 

[BurnItDwn]

Looks to me like if you are going to go 4K resolution, or eyefinity with 3x1080p and want a single card solution, the Fury X looks to be the best option.

The 980TI is much better at providing high framerates in single 1080p or 1440p resolution, but 4k seems to be more memory bandwidth than what the 980 TI can handle.

 

[2is]

Good call, if cards don't meet your needs then wait. It is easy to get caught up in new card mania, but going from high end videocard to buying washer\dryer and closets is a first

Hey, for most people, they all come out of the same bank account!

 

[B-Riz]

Ehh I just grabbed a Fury X. I'm dead set on using AIO cooling on GPU's so for me its $100 cheaper than the comparable 980ti hybrid. Ill keep the extra $100 for a little less performance.

Will you have time to throw up some perf numbers using your AMD and Intel sytems?

 

[Hitman928]

No kidding. 30 reviews, 29 show it using more power, one doesn't.

"See, it uses less power."

To be fair, purepc had it coming in lower than the 980 Ti (at system level) and another (forgot which one, too many to go through) said that their readings depended on the game and some games it used under what they measured their 980 Ti at. A couple others had the 980 Ti and Fury equal, give or take a few watts so it's not quite so simple a question. Personally, I trust Toms the most for power readings, they have been very consistent in their results (much more than techpowerup) because they have the most sophisticated and accurate equipment, but you have to realize that measurements are game dependent and so results will vary. In the end, IMO, it doesn't matter. The two are close enough now that power shouldn't be a concern, there are far more important merits to consider.

 

[Madpacket]

I, like many others here were patiently waiting for the Fury X to replace existing top dawg cards like the 290 but after reading the reviews, I'm pretty disappointed. The got the pricing definitely wrong and this is something they could have corrected before launch.

So now I instead spent a few bucks a Corsair H60 and Corsair 290 GPU shroud. I've already flashed the BIOS to a 290X which works fine so now with quiet cooling and actual voltage adjustments at my disposal I'll crank it up to 1150 / 1200 and call it a day.

I figure for a card I already owned and paid off a long time ago spending $100.00 after taxes to give me +-75% of the performance of the Fury with similar cooling and sound levels is a smarter move than selling off the existing card for a few hundred at most (ref card) and having to spend $850 + tax on the Fury (CAD pricing).

Besides, 4K gaming is a bust for me (and should be for many other enthusiasts) as the panels are stuck at a crappy 60hz and these new cards really aren't fast enough anyway unless you double up on them.

Asus IPS 1440P 27" with freesync, here I come. I'll revisit 4K when 14/16nm cards are released and the panels can do at least 120Hz.

 

[B-Riz]

I, like many others here were patiently waiting for the Fury X to replace existing top dawg cards like the 290 but after reading the reviews, I'm pretty disappointed. The got the pricing definitely wrong and this is something they could have corrected before launch.

So now I instead spent a few bucks a Corsair H60 and Corsair 290 GPU shroud. I've already flashed the BIOS to a 290X which works fine so now with quiet cooling and actual voltage adjustments at my disposal I'll crank it up to 1150 / 1200 and call it a day.

I figure for a card I already owned and paid off a long time ago spending $100.00 after taxes to give me +-75% of the performance of the Fury with similar cooling and sound levels is a smarter move than selling off the existing card for a few hundred at most (ref card) and having to spend $850 + tax on the Fury (CAD pricing).

Besides, 4K gaming is a bust for me (and should be for many other enthusiasts) as the panels are stuck at a crappy 60hz and these new cards really aren't fast enough anyway unless you double up on them.

Asus IPS 1440P 27" with freesync, here I come. I'll revisit 4K when 14/16nm cards are released and the panels can do at least 120Hz.

I am doing the same / similar thing, 290x reference and Kraken G10.

Do you mind putting a thread in the AMD vid card section on how your install goes, temp reductions, etc?

 

[krumme]

I dunno, at least with TWIMTBP I got something to play with.

"Wait and See" it's 4 months after my upgrade window opened up, I could have had a 980 Ti sitting in my rig all happily, but I gave AMD the benefit of the doubt because "Radeon! YEAH!!!!"

Welps, now I got to wait for DX12...

Then for DX12 games...

By then GTX 1080 Ti "u wot m8" Edition is wrecking things and Fury XXX is probably going to use more power, be slower, and run hotter.

And if you sense any bitterness in my post, it's because I did get hyped and I did want Fury X to be awesome. So good I'd have zero regrets buying it. But I can't buy it, not knowing for $30 more I can get a card that is faster with more vram AND uses less power.

But not "hot and noisy"

 

[SolMiester]

Looks to me like if you are going to go 4K resolution, or eyefinity with 3x1080p and want a single card solution, the Fury X looks to be the best option.

The 980TI is much better at providing high framerates in single 1080p or 1440p resolution, but 4k seems to be more memory bandwidth than what the 980 TI can handle.

What benchmarks are you viewing?

 

[Makaveli]

Looks to me like if you are going to go 4K resolution, or eyefinity with 3x1080p and want a single card solution, the Fury X looks to be the best option.

The 980TI is much better at providing high framerates in single 1080p or 1440p resolution, but 4k seems to be more memory bandwidth than what the 980 TI can handle.

The only thing i've seen in all of these reviews is these cards

Titan X
980 TI
Fury X

None of them are powerful enough for 4k without dropping settings.

If you really want to push for 4k on a single card you have to wait for 14/16nm gpu's.

The rest is just whining from people that set their expectations way too high.

And based on what happen to kelper I would be concerned for maxwell when pascal comes out but only time will tell. Just like the fury X with more mature drives and win 10 will probably catch up to the TI sometime in the future.

 

[Madpacket]

I am doing the same / similar thing, 290x reference and Kraken G10.

Do you mind putting a thread in the AMD vid card section on how your install goes, temp reductions, etc?

No problem. Hopefully this weekend I'll get time to do it. Note TomsHardware already did an article on this a while back and temps under load stay around 50C like the Fury X. It'll be interesting if my power consumption drops because of the reduced temps. I'll measure that as well.

 

[Alessio1989]

I am disappointed that I need to watch a full video instead to read numbers on a textual "review".

Lolj, let's wait to see how AMD HBM MC works on multi-GPU...

 

[LTC8K6]

The only thing i've seen in all of these reviews is these cards

Titan X
980 TI
Fury X

None of them are powerful enough for 4k without dropping settings.

If you really want to push for 4k on a single card you have to wait for 14/16nm gpu's.

The rest is just whining from people that set their expectations way too high.

And based on what happen to kelper I would be concerned for maxwell when pascal comes out but only time will tell. Just like the fury X with more mature drives and win 10 will probably catch up to the TI sometime in the future.

It doesn't play FC4 this well?

http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2015/06/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-7.jpg

 

[yacoub]

[Youtube link]
According to this reviewer, most games are faster on the 980ti .

According to Anandtech the same is true:

Here's the comparison that matters right now when they're equivalently priced at $650 each (980Ti vs Fury X):

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1496?vs=1513

And as someone who's bought AMD for close to a decade now, because they've been rock-solid GPUs that performed well and had a solid bang-for-the-buck, I think the 980Ti is the better choice. You get 2GB more VRAM, better performance in 99% of the stuff tested, quieter, cooler, and you get a nice air-cooled card rather than some hydro contraption. Oh yeah, and HDMI 2.0, right?

 

[YBS1]

Have you played FC4 at ~50fps? I certainly wouldn't call it "smooth gameplay".

Yes, I understand some people are less/more sensitive to these things than others

 

[djnsmith7]

No HDMI 2.0 is a disappointment. That is a strange gamble.

I don't currently own a 4K display, but I will within the next 2 years (75"+ 4K > game room | 58" 1080p > bedroom).

It's interesting how AMD is always 2 steps behind Nv. My 7970 will be my last AMD product for a long time. Their silly business decisions just don't suit my style anymore.

 

[Osjur]

I ordered Fury X because it has a feature which only one card from AMD side and none from the Nvidia has: PLP-Eyefinity.

I would have bought 980Ti the instant I saw the reviews if I didn't have my 20/30/20 monitor setup. Been waiting for hardware PLP support for an eternity and finally we have that, on a card which is actually fast enough for some 4960x1600 action.

R9 285 which also supports it doesn't have the power to drive that resolution.

 

[2is]

Have you played FC4 at ~50fps? I certainly wouldn't call it "smooth gameplay".

Yes, I understand some people are less/more sensitive to these things than others

I have, it's not that bad really. If it was a fast twitch based shooter like COD, that's one thing, but it's a slow paced action/adventure shooter

 

[YBS1]

I have, it's not that bad really. If it was a fast twitch based shooter like COD, that's one thing, but it's a slow paced action/adventure shooter

Oh, it's playable at that frame rate, but I wouldn't call it optimal. I certainly wouldn't be happy with that after just spending ~$650 on a shiny new top of the line card. Which is why in my eyes at least these cards would still be inadequate for single card 4K solutions. Some games yes, but I don't really enjoy any FPS at borderline frame rates.

 

[LTC8K6]

Have you played FC4 at ~50fps? I certainly wouldn't call it "smooth gameplay".

Yes, I understand some people are less/more sensitive to these things than others

I don't play video games at all. I've never even seen Far Cry at all.

I was just wondering if AMD's slide was accurate, given the post about single cards and 4K.

Anandtech says 44fps, but I don't know if that is max or average.

I assume average, but then that is 10fps slower than AMD's slide.