[HardOCP] 390x too close for comfort to R9 Fury

[n0x1ous]

390x performs very close to standard Fury in a lot of these tests.

discuss!

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/13/msi_r9_390x_gaming_vs_asus_strix_fury_review/1#.VaZuouJVhBc

 

[railven]

It's hardOCP, they either did something wrong or the Nvida check cashed.

From what I saw across a lot of reviews, Fury seems to struggle in the lower resolutions. Which is odd. So a card on par with a GTX 980 in most cases would be nipping at this card too at lower resolutions then throw some OC and there you go.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Its not just hardocp.

Hardware.fr.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I am going to modify this statement a bit this morning. We will NOT be testing Fury at 4K across our suite of games. In-game best playable IQ with Fury X at 4K has given us reason to think that it is not worthwhile of our resources to test Fury at 4K.

Not surprised in the least they won't test Fury @4K because that is where the card comes into its own.

Another black mark against H.

 

[Dribble]

Both have 64 rops running about the same speed. When that is the bottleneck then you end up with similar performance.

 

[BUnit1701]

"300 series rebrands can't compete, AMD is so screwed.." was the chorus a week ago, can't wait to see how the haters spin this.

 

[Headfoot]

Dribble's got it. The only ROP increase on Fiji is an increase in efficiency, which is good, but clearly not enough to vault it 40% over Hawaii like Hawaii did over Tahiti

 

[Mondozei]

Heh.

Still, makes mockery of the whole "390X is just a rebrand" crowd. If they drop the MSRP to 399, it'd be a killer card.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

In techreports review the 390x is also really close in the 99th percentile metric.

In the average fps metric it's right in between 390X and fury X. It uses a lot less power than a 390x though. I expect them to have a lot more overclocking headroom once the tools to change voltage become available.

 

[LTC8K6]

Fiji is GCN1.2

End of argument?

 

[x3sphere]

Heh.

Still, makes mockery of the whole "390X is just a rebrand" crowd. If they drop the MSRP to 399, it'd be a killer card.

Clock for clock 390X is the same as 290X no?

Sure there have been tweaks made and it seems 390Xs are overclocking slightly better, but ultimately those that bought a non-reference 290X have no reason to upgrade at 1440p or below.

You are able to get a 290X Tri-X for $309 right now after rebate, now that's a killer card for the money.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202145&cm_re=290x-_-14-202-145-_-Product

 

[sm625]

So basically what this is telling you is that the Fury is a $300 card. If a 290X is $300 then not only the Fury is only worth $300, but also the GTX980. The only difference is that people will gladly blindly pay $200 more for a brand name.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

So basically what this is telling you is that the Fury is a $300 card. If a 290X is $300 then not only the Fury is only worth $300, but also the GTX980. The only difference is that people will gladly blindly pay $200 more for a brand name.

290(X) really push the performance per dollar curve while the R9 are some of the poorest values

I would not say fury is a $300.- card. More like $450.-

 

[soccerballtux]

ridiculous. will [H] ever stop??!

 

[soccerballtux]

Its not just hardocp.

Hardware.fr.

ok, so there's a bottleneck somewhere. AMD will sort it out.

this is actually inspiring me to buy a 290x. I think the 4GB RAM memory improvements to Fury will filter down, and the continued architecture improvements will too

 

[n0x1ous]

ok, so there's a bottleneck somewhere. AMD will sort it out.

this is actually inspiring me to buy a 290x. I think the 4GB RAM memory improvements to Fury will filter down, and the continued architecture improvements will too

people maybe forget that 290 series and especially 390 series with improved memory clock and large (though not compared to fiji) 512 bit bus still has a lot of memory bandwidth available.

I think the 390/390x are pushing close to 400GB/s out of the box if Im not mistaken? Still great parts. My 290 has been fabulous and continues to get better with age.

 

[soccerballtux]

people maybe forget that 290 series and especially 390 series with improved memory clock and large (though not compared to fiji) 512 bit bus still has a lot of memory bandwidth available.

I think the 390/390x are pushing close to 400GB/s out of the box if Im not mistaken? Still great parts. My 290 has been fabulous and continues to get better with age.

I should have bought one of those 290's in May when they were $240 on slickdeals.

 

[n0x1ous]

I should have bought one of those 290's in May when they were $240 on slickdeals.

yep - that $310 290x tri-x link that someone posted today is the best bang for the buck deal around right now.

 

[x3sphere]

They probably will get the performance at lower resolutions improved over time, but as it stands, Fury looks like a pretty bad buy for anything other than 4K gaming.

I wouldn't recommend a 980 either for that matter. Really a 290X is the best buy right now, if you need more performance at 1080p or 1440p a 980 Ti is the only card worth stepping up to. There are no good in between options currently.

Edit: Also, I don't think this is a bad situation for AMD. It's not like they a have huge stockpile of Fury cards waiting to be sold right now. The performance @ 4K is very competitive and I think that will drive sales right now. When the supply situation improves hopefully we start to see driver improvements @ 1440p and lower.

 

[Makaveli]

yep - that $310 290x tri-x link that someone posted today is the best bang for the buck deal around right now.

It is an outstanding deal but sadly not in Canadian dollars only US.

 

[Tapoer]

Did you guys see the tomshardware article about Fury X and 980ti power consumption?
It was obvious that fury wasn't used at 100% in 1080p, even at 1440p it should not reach a 100% GPU utilization all the time.

It's probably being CPU bottlenecked because of the driver overhead.
Someone should test Fury X performance at 1080p at different CPU speeds and show GPU utilization.

EDIT: If Fury X was ROP bottlenecked, it wouldn't be much better than 390x at 4k.

 

[escrow4]

Over here in Australia, a Sapphire 390 is $509 while the 390X is $659. Is the X really worth that price difference? A Gigabyte 980 is $709.

 

[iiiankiii]

I want to be optimistic and say that lack of driver optimization is the reason why Fiji is under performing at those lower resolutions. So it wouldn't be a stretch to assume performance will increase as drivers mature. Of course, as always, we'll just have to "Wait and See."

 

[Hitman928]

No, the difference between a 390 and 390x is 15%, worst case scenario. On average it's probably closer to 10%.

 

[96Firebird]

Still, makes mockery of the whole "390X is just a rebrand" crowd.

How did you come to this conclusion? Looks like the Fury is actually no better than an OC'd 290X in BF4, which is a damn shame.