I have this feeling that since users can't buy Fury/X, they're buying 390/X

[tential]

So, am I reading it right that the "stock" 980 ti performance is with AIB cards that are O/C'd 15% out of the box?

It's GREAT that you want to make your case for the Fury X against the stock GTX 980ti.

Lets live in the real world for a second where we're purchasing REAL cards.
If you want the most performance possible, you'll spend an extra $20-50 extra to get a real cooler.

I don't get why you think it's an UNREASONABLE test. Yes, if we want to know how GTX 980ti reference cards work we can look those up. I guess we should never test R9 290's beyond their reference cards either huh?

Are you saying that you would recommend a person to purchase Fury X over a GTX 980Ti AIB card?
That's the simple and most relevant question.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's GREAT that you want to make your case for the Fury X against the stock GTX 980ti.

Lets live in the real world for a second where we're purchasing REAL cards.
If you want the most performance possible, you'll spend an extra $20-50 extra to get a real cooler.

I don't get why you think it's an UNREASONABLE test. Yes, if we want to know how GTX 980ti reference cards work we can look those up. I guess we should never test R9 290's beyond their reference cards either huh?

Are you saying that you would recommend a person to purchase Fury X over a GTX 980Ti AIB card?
That's the simple and most relevant question.

You are reading too much into it. I do think that reference vs. reference has it's place. They've never quit using reference Hawaii cards and benches in comparisons even today. I just want there to be an apples for apples treatment by the media. Instead we get best case for nVidia and they still only trade blows in this comparison.

 

[Azix]

The problem also is that the R9 390 is VERY late to compete with the GTX 970. AMD just hasn't had good timing with releases.

They already had the 290/290x for that. What the 390/390x do is bring in fresh faces and hopefully remove some stigma while wooing with more VRAM. It might have helped if they released rebrands 295/295x close to the 970/980 launch with only aftermarket coolers forcing new reviews (though almost all those sites would be crying about rebrands and ignore value)

Or, AMD comes first to market with the HBM2 cards, which would be a game changer for AMD since the next reviews would read how AMD just wrecked the 980Ti in performance.

They'd read "we'll have to see how this card stacks up against nvidia's soon to be released Pascal cards"

 

[tential]

You are reading too much into it. I do think that reference vs. reference has it's place. They've never quit using reference Hawaii cards and benches in comparisons even today. I just want there to be an apples for apples treatment by the media. Instead we get best case for nVidia and they still only trade blows in this comparison.

AMD is getting its best case treatments now with the R9 300 series by not shooting themselves in the foot and even with the R9 Fury lineup. AMD made sure the coolers were good this time around. Sadly, it's too late, they needed good coolers in the R9 200 lineup at the start.

Maybe though, in 2016 AMD can launch a full lineup without massive deficiencies and they'll do very very well. But sadly, if Nvidia were to release a reasonable priced product +$50 dollars in my price range I'm looking and the performance was a big enough upgrade given the fact we're on a nodeshrink, then I wont wait for AMD. And considering this nodeshrink will prompt a LOT of people to upgrade, if Nvidia is first to market and the preformance is good and the price isn't bad, AMD will lose out on the OPPORTUNITY to even make a sale no matter how good the product is that they release.

 

[tential]

They already had the 290/290x for that. What the 390/390x do is bring in fresh faces and hopefully remove some stigma while wooing with more VRAM. It might have helped if they released rebrands 295/295x close to the 970/980 launch with only aftermarket coolers forcing new reviews (though almost all those sites would be crying about rebrands and ignore value)



They'd read "we'll have to see how this card stacks up against nvidia's soon to be released Pascal cards"

R9 290 and 290x released with poor coolers and had only those poor coolers available for awhile, and had miners destroy the pricing on those cards.

So yes, I remember those cards, and yes I remember how great the reviews are, and I remember trying to get one on newegg and realizing that unless I was setting up a mining rig, I wasn't getting those cards.

So while miners got those cards and used them and they were sales for AMD. It hurt AMD's brand value. The sales weren't people purchasing because they liked AMD but because there was a profit to be made. While the cards would have been a good value and may have woo'd a lot of actual gamers, they were unable to do so because:
A) AMD's reference cooler was horrendous
B) Miners destroyed pricing
C) Nvidia cards are there as an alternative to not have to deal with this.

AMD just hasn't been in a winning position lately my friend. It's really plain and simple. They can have good value cards certainly, but if you're talking about releasing a product that you expect gamers to proclaim the "MUST HAVE CARD" AMD has a LOT of work to do.

If you think the Fury X was a good premium product launch vs the Titan X then you don't see how deep the problem runs for AMD right now.

 

[Azix]

R9 290 and 290x released with poor coolers and had only those poor coolers available for awhile, and had miners destroy the pricing on those cards.

So yes, I remember those cards, and yes I remember how great the reviews are, and I remember trying to get one on newegg and realizing that unless I was setting up a mining rig, I wasn't getting those cards.

So while miners got those cards and used them and they were sales for AMD. It hurt AMD's brand value. The sales weren't people purchasing because they liked AMD but because there was a profit to be made. While the cards would have been a good value and may have woo'd a lot of actual gamers, they were unable to do so because:
A) AMD's reference cooler was horrendous
B) Miners destroyed pricing
C) Nvidia cards are there as an alternative to not have to deal with this.

That was an interesting time. Because when GPUs go out of stock, prices do not usually rise. the 970 and 980 were going in and out but nobody thought about raising prices like that. I guess because miners were making money they figured they were willing to pay up.

I don't know if it hurt their image much. The main problem was not capitalizing on the miners who wanted a good range of AMD cards at the time. At the time I thought they should have targeted them specifically with a rushed new GPU.

the reference coolers were bad, but the real mistake was not making sure people knew how good the non-reference performed. letting the bad rep persist. I never liked AMD reference so I don't disagree. Nvidia reference is not much better but they had a bigger chip so it wasn't as bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE84y-oaLyY

290x quiet and cool. They make mistakes, but the way they fix them is more an issue. Nvidia also gets away with more (AMD would not have gotten away with that 970). the renaming and releasing the 290/290x with only non-reference would have helped a lot. There are also things nvidia partners do like hybrid special editions etc. that AMD should. All white special edition etc etc. Stuff like that sways people.

AMD just hasn't been in a winning position lately my friend. It's really plain and simple. They can have good value cards certainly, but if you're talking about releasing a product that you expect gamers to proclaim the "MUST HAVE CARD" AMD has a LOT of work to do.

If you think the Fury X was a good premium product launch vs the Titan X then you don't see how deep the problem runs for AMD right now.

Winning position in sales? sure. Winning position in performance? sometimes. vs the titan x yes, vs the 980 ti, more questionable. I am willing to wait a few months to make a judgement on that since I would never buy such a card anyway (unless.... I find a tree.. with money as leaves...). It all hinges on how dx12 and their drivers go.

960 is beat and they have not released a new product below it. 970 is beat. 980 is beat above and below.

 

[werepossum]

You are reading too much into it. I do think that reference vs. reference has it's place. They've never quit using reference Hawaii cards and benches in comparisons even today. I just want there to be an apples for apples treatment by the media. Instead we get best case for nVidia and they still only trade blows in this comparison.

Agreed, but reviews should also include the best factory OC card available. Even if a consumer isn't going to over clock, factory over clocked cards are certainly an option which should legitimately be considered.

 

[tential]

You miss the point.
They aren't in a winning position is exactly what I mean.
When the 290x launched, it was screwed over by miners. Miners buying the 290x is only SALES. It doesn't remotely help AMD's long term position. 290x/290s being out of stock meant that actual gamers couldn't purchase these cards. So they purchased their GTX alternatives.

That's ONE way the 290x/290s lost a MAJOR amount of sales.

Now the AIB cards come out, but it's too late, people already purchased Nvidia cards.
Why wait for AMD cards to come down in price and for the nicer AIB cards to come out when NVidia already has cards out?

Then the card goes up against the GTX 970/980. Great, it holds up in performance I guess.

But well, now the GTX 970/980 are the NEW products. New sells. Not only that, they both OC GREAT. OCing sells to gamers and enthusiasts. Not only that, they're lower power consumption than those super hot running R9 290s (Thank AMD's reference cooler for that) and they were benched vs those.

That is setting yourself up to be in a losing position. That isn't to do with sales, it's straight up TIMING. You have to time your products correctly, and ensure GAMERS get them as you want those gamers to become life long customers, something AMD was unable to do due to miners.

You just can't help but think the market is against AMD. It's not the market that's against AMD, AMD just doesn't launch products in a fashion that allows it to capture large amounts of market share and that's the bottom line.

I'm speaking from a position of a HD7950 owner who recommended the R9 290 the whole time.
It was a good buy at many points, but even as a consumer, an extra $50 is nothing to me. If I was a pure gamer, why not just to have the latest card? I'm not a gamer, my gaming purchases are very carefully picked to hit specific performance targets for a specific number of games I plan on playing during that time period, and so I really don't apply.

The fact that you think the GTX 980 is beat above and below just proves that you really don't follow the market and will blindly recommend AMD products without considering what price points the Nvidia competitors may hit.

Lol at recommending Fury against the GTX 980, but yet you'd have recommended the 290x over the GTX 980. But hey, if you can't see your own hypocrisy that's great. I'll enjoy both vendors, because I really don't care.

 

[bystander36]

You are reading too much into it. I do think that reference vs. reference has it's place. They've never quit using reference Hawaii cards and benches in comparisons even today. I just want there to be an apples for apples treatment by the media. Instead we get best case for nVidia and they still only trade blows in this comparison.

It's real tough in this case, as the Fury X is pretty much the same in its stock and best case scenario, unless looking at LN2 results. Anyways, it was pretty much a tie at stock out of the box settings, when both were OC'ed, the 980ti's win.

 

[bystander36]

You miss the point.
They aren't in a winning position is exactly what I mean.
When the 290x launched, it was screwed over by miners. Miners buying the 290x is only SALES. It doesn't remotely help AMD's long term position. 290x/290s being out of stock meant that actual gamers couldn't purchase these cards. So they purchased their GTX alternatives.

That's ONE way the 290x/290s lost a MAJOR amount of sales.

Could you explain how that hurt them? The miners still bought those cards. They were sold, so I fail to see how they lost sales because miners bought them. Is it possible they could have sold more? Sure, but that was up to them to supply more. A sale is a sale.

The only thing miners affected, was the number of gamers who bought them. The number that was sold was only helped by miners.

 

[tential]

Could you explain how that hurt them? The miners still bought those cards. They were sold, so I fail to see how they lost sales because miners bought them. Is it possible they could have sold more? Sure, but that was up to them to supply more. A sale is a sale.

The only thing miners affected, was the number of gamers who bought them. The number that was sold was only helped by miners.

I'm a new gamer entering the market.
I have a choice between R9 and GTX. R9 is sold out, GTX isn't. I purchase GTX.
People are CONSUMERS, they tend to tie affiliation to their brand purchase. They enjoy their GTX purchase, buy GTX the next time around.

I'm a current gamer. R9 is sold out/high price. I take GTX, again same situation.

Your problem is that you think a sale is a sale through and through. That is NOT the case and NEVER will be. If you're running ANY business, you'll understand that if you only have ONE product to sell, you want that product to go into the hands of a person who will most talk about your product, push your product, return and purchase your product.

Tell me, where are GPU miners now? Are they still purchasing a ton of cards for miners? They're out of the GPU market... they've moved onto better ways to mine.

But hey, if you're incapable of seeing how a sale which is fraud, even if the sale clears and you get the money, isn't the same as a sale to a loyal customer then I guess we don't speak the same language. Customer Acquisition Cost must not be a metric that you have to think about daily then.

 

[bystander36]

I'm a new gamer entering the market.
I have a choice between R9 and GTX. R9 is sold out, GTX isn't. I purchase GTX.
People are CONSUMERS, they tend to tie affiliation to their brand purchase. They enjoy their GTX purchase, buy GTX the next time around.

I'm a current gamer. R9 is sold out/high price. I take GTX, again same situation.

Your problem is that you think a sale is a sale through and through. That is NOT the case and NEVER will be. If you're running ANY business, you'll understand that if you only have ONE product to sell, you want that product to go into the hands of a person who will most talk about your product, push your product, return and purchase your product.

Tell me, where are GPU miners now? Are they still purchasing a ton of cards for miners? They're out of the GPU market... they've moved onto better ways to mine.

But hey, if you're incapable of seeing how a sale which is fraud, even if the sale clears and you get the money, isn't the same as a sale to a loyal customer then I guess we don't speak the same language. Customer Acquisition Cost must not be a metric that you have to think about daily then.

I would not have thought few months of 1 generation of cards that had stocking issues would have killed off so much future sales. They had an opportunity to sell a ton if they could have stocked more. I would not have thought a few months of stocking issue would have turned such a huge percentage of past, present and future purchases to switch to Nvidia for all future purchases. I wouldn't have thought that high of a percentage of gamers would have all been even in the market for a new card during that period. It may have had some impact, just I wouldn't have expected this huge exodus I keep hearing about.

You also don't have to be so nasty in your explanation. I don't have a problem, I just failed to see what you keep talking about. I just didn't see how it hurt them so badly, as you said.

Edit: Anyways, if you are right, and this does have a huge impact, this impact would be on Fury X, which has stocking issues anyway. AMD has had anything to sell until now, since the 290x "got screwed over by miners". I guess this will hurt them on their next release.

 

[tential]

Fury X's pitfalls aren't the same as the 290x.

Despite the 290x's pitfalls, it still had GREAT performance vs the much more expensive competitors. What killed it was miners and heat.

But Fury X, it doesn't have that great performance vs much more expensive competitors. It doesn't have VRAM, it doesn't have OC, it doesn't have Perf/Watt, it has a water cooler and that's really all it has. Even this is marred by the pump issues at launch and by the fact it ONLY comes like this which ticks off the MANY gamers who won't touch water cooling at all, and there are many.

So Fury X is really only being picked up by those AMD already has in their pocket. It's not attracting many people away from the GTX 980 Ti. Fury X really just showed those who waited that it was not worth their while and look how many people are picking up GTX 980 Ti's that had AMD cards before?

It's not hard to lose marketshare if you aren't careful. AMD was already in a bad position with killing off ATi's better brand image, using its poor image to replace that given how badly its processors were being trounced, etc. it's just, were at a point where AMD has to play a perfect game if they want to play. That's the reality of their situation.

All the Fury/390 lineup did was match Nvidia pricepoints and performance and that's not what gamers get excited about purchasing. So that's 2 launches in a row that are marred by some problem that will not let AMD capture long term customers.

Now we have 2016 coming up. Being first with a massive performance jump is important. If it's not AMD, it won't matter if AMD's new card is 15% faster at the same price as Nvidia's, the damage will be done in being FIRST, unless AMD's spin/hype/pr team is golden at convincing customers to wait. I could see Nvidia being able to do that... not AMD and after Fury X's disappointing launch, even though I'm neutral as can be, I simply won't wait, I'll buy the first node shrink card to market that has a good performance to price ratio or I'll be even willing to pay a decent premium up to $50-100 for it.

Like I said, being first is a lot.

 

[Jacky60]

If you didn't plan on ocing then isn't fury x cf the better choice? Until games are non neutral of course.

Well it depends on the games, for me playing Arma 3 Fury x isn't the better choice. I went from 295x2 quadfire and it was great when it worked OK. Going 980ti SLI without overclocking playing Arma 3 my performance went up and viewable distance went up by about 30% whereas in theory the 295x2 x2 should have been the better choice. Whether this was better architecture, better driver support or 50% more RAM I don't know but for whatever reason Nvidia seem to have produced a significantly better solution for my favourite game. I accept that Furyx may well be the better choice playing other games but if like me you play one game 95% of the time then buying the card that works best with your game is the only decision to make.

 

[iiiankiii]

Well it depends on the games, for me playing Arma 3 Fury x isn't the better choice. I went from 295x2 quadfire and it was great when it worked OK. Going 980ti SLI without overclocking playing Arma 3 my performance went up and viewable distance went up by about 30% whereas in theory the 295x2 x2 should have been the better choice. Whether this was better architecture, better driver support or 50% more RAM I don't know but for whatever reason Nvidia seem to have produced a significantly better solution for my favourite game. I accept that Furyx may well be the better choice playing other games but if like me you play one game 95% of the time then buying the card that works best with your game is the only decision to make.

Well, knowing how flaky multi-gpus can be, I would be surprise to see any quad gpu crossfire (295x2 x2 = 4x 290x) scale well. Basically, anything after 2x gpus is just a waste of money. The scaling just isn't that great. I'm willing to bet 2x fury x will be very competitive to 2x 980 ti because crossfire scales better.

 

[Pwndenburg]

Well, I did my little bit to help tonight. A guildmate that play FFXIV had to replace his card and was going to go with a 750 to replace a 580. I pointed him towards the R9270, as it will significantly outperform the 750. If his psu can drive a 580, I assume it can drive that.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD is getting its best case treatments now with the R9 300 series by not shooting themselves in the foot and even with the R9 Fury lineup. AMD made sure the coolers were good this time around. Sadly, it's too late, they needed good coolers in the R9 200 lineup at the start.

Maybe though, in 2016 AMD can launch a full lineup without massive deficiencies and they'll do very very well. But sadly, if Nvidia were to release a reasonable priced product +$50 dollars in my price range I'm looking and the performance was a big enough upgrade given the fact we're on a nodeshrink, then I wont wait for AMD. And considering this nodeshrink will prompt a LOT of people to upgrade, if Nvidia is first to market and the preformance is good and the price isn't bad, AMD will lose out on the OPPORTUNITY to even make a sale no matter how good the product is that they release.

I have no idea what 3/4's of what you posted has to do with my post (As a matter of fact it's not even particularly coherent). If you are talking first to release on the new node, well AMD has done that the last two times we've had a shrink and it barely made a dent in nVidia sales.

On to what I said, how is AMD getting best case treatment? They are taking a custom O/C'd card and comparing it to Fury. I don't have a problem with the comparison. I do have a problem with, what I see as, the different treatment from the media. Did we, in the entire life of Hawaii, see the media take aftermarket Hawaii cards and use them in their comparisons with reference Kepler? What we always saw was the 94° throttling reference cards, not only compared on the graphs, but also referenced continuously as a comparison. Til today Hawaii cards are referred to as hot and loud. Reality, they haven't been hot or loud for quite some time. As a matter of fact, except for mem clocks, they are no different than the 390/X which, not only wipe the floor with Kepler, but compete quite well with 970/980 Maxwell (390X trades blows with the 980). That was not the case in reviews when Maxwell released though and the only real difference is the sites were using ancient benchmarks.

If AMD had not best case, but fare comparisons, the 290/X would have outperformed Kepler (which it clearly does) and they wouldn't have lost massive market share. How many people bought 780 ti thinking they were buying the top performing card when that obviously was not the case? Instead AMD had to sell Hawaii for ~60% of the price of Kepler and still lost market share.

I'll tell you that for my money nothing has changed. I believe we will find out down the road that Fury is in reality the superior card and we are currently having the wool pulled over our eyes again.

680 vs 7970? If they released today at the same prices. Knowing what we now now, which would you buy?

780/ti vs 290/X? If they launched today at the same prices. Knowing what we now now, which would you buy?

Think about it.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's real tough in this case, as the Fury X is pretty much the same in its stock and best case scenario, unless looking at LN2 results. Anyways, it was pretty much a tie at stock out of the box settings, when both were OC'ed, the 980ti's win.

But the "stock" is already O/C'd by 15%. Let them show the 980 ti SLI being 15% slower out of the box, and then let them show it being ahead after both are O/C'd. Then people can decide whether we want to ride the silicon lottery or take guaranteed performance. Or even hedge on what Fury will do with proper O/C'ing software when it's available. Instead they make it look like you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain when that's not the truth. Unless you are going with this particular (or similarly) O/C'd card and then endeavor to do manual O/C'ing, which while many of us here feel perfectly fine doing, the avg individual reading the review wouldn't have a clue. Instead it looks like 980 ti SLI = Fury X Crossfire, which it absolutely doesn't. Even before you take into acct. that the reference 980 ti is going to throttle like a 290 on the original BIOS.

 

[tential]

I already explained why the 290x/290 struggled numerous times. It's hard to gain market share among your target audience when a new market develops and comes in, exploits your products then leaves. The 290x was too high priced at launch plain and simple.

No point arguing though, you wot take a far faster 980ti for 20 more dollars than a fury x. Amd fans have such a everyone is against us mentality to even pick the best product currently out lol.....

The market has spoken as I thought it would. Fury x is a dud launch that was below expectations. But hey, let's bash nvidia because they're nvidia even when their products are actually well priced this gen compared to amds new 300 and fury series.

Edit: you forget the value of time. While fury x owners hope for their card to be worth the value gtx 980ti owners are loving it.
Lol at paying 650 for the fury x giving it's laundry list of pitfalls vs a product with the same thing price.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why buy a Fury X, when you can get a 980Ti thats better in every way.

Steam hardware survey tells the story. 300 series is too low to even register. Same with Fury for that matter.

Entire R7 200 series got 0.59% of DX11 GPUs. +0.01%.
Entire R9 200 series got 1.11% of DX11 GPUs. +0.07%.

Now lets see:
GTX750 1.24% +0.03%.
GTX750 TI 2.10% +0.12%
GTX960 1.35% +0.27%.
GTX970 3.85% +0.40%.
GTX980 0.97% +0.06%.

Then people can try fool themselves all day with one excuse after the other.

Its not for fun one company got "Strong geforce sales". While the other company got a division that is collapsing.

 

[Ma_Deuce]

Why buy a Fury X, when you can get a 980Ti thats better in every way.

Every way including liquid cooling, temps and noise under load? What's the price difference between the two?

Im willing to give up a couple fps for a cool running and quiet card as long as the price difference warrants it. If there is a 980ti that matches it's price point and really does beat it in every metric, that's a no brainer though.

Do you have a link?

 

[tviceman]

I already explained why the 290x/290 struggled numerous times. It's hard to gain market share among your target audience when a new market develops and comes in, exploits your products then leaves. The 290x was too high priced at launch plain and simple.

I don't think the 290x was too high priced. I think it had too much stigma attached to it. Crappy reference blower, nuclear reactor temperatures, higher power consumption, wind turbine fan noise, and less overclocking vs. competition... The price was actually good for perf/$ with AMD's best vs. Nvidia's best.

The Fury X (and Fury), on the other hand, doesn't have the temperature stigma but carries significantly less OC headroom and noticeably less perf/$ now. After market 980 TI's have significantly more perf/$ than Fury X, and after market 980's have noticeably more perf/$ than after market Fury's. Giving Nvidia that edge right now is comparable to juggling balls with 1 hand.

 

[tviceman]

Every way including liquid cooling, temps and noise under load? What's the price difference between the two?

Fury X is probably going to win in the noise department every time, and will win 100% of the time in the temperature department. But there are some 980 TI cards that are not discernibly louder.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_980_Ti_SC_Plus/29.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/30.html

980 TI's 35 db vs. Fury X's 32 db. Inside a case that will be very, very difficult to discern a difference.

And at $680 + free AAA game http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 50001402 600565061 vs, Fury X at $680 http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 600566292 getting the EVGA SC+ which is already 10% faster than a stock 980 TI, which makes it > 20% faster at 1440p, it's a pretty easy decision for me if I were in the market for a $680 video card.

 

[bystander36]

But the "stock" is already O/C'd by 15%. Let them show the 980 ti SLI being 15% slower out of the box, and then let them show it being ahead after both are O/C'd. Then people can decide whether we want to ride the silicon lottery or take guaranteed performance. Or even hedge on what Fury will do with proper O/C'ing software when it's available. Instead they make it look like you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain when that's not the truth. Unless you are going with this particular (or similarly) O/C'd card and then endeavor to do manual O/C'ing, which while many of us here feel perfectly fine doing, the avg individual reading the review wouldn't have a clue. Instead it looks like 980 ti SLI = Fury X Crossfire, which it absolutely doesn't. Even before you take into acct. that the reference 980 ti is going to throttle like a 290 on the original BIOS.

They do have everything to gain and nothing to lose. You are guaranteed, because that 15% factory OC is its out of the box clocked.

Anyways, as I said before, pretty much reference clocks, factory OC's and user OC's are all going to compare to a nearly factory Fury (X) at the moment. All choices of comparisons are valid and you should be seeing comparisons to all ways.

 

[Silverforce11]

The "stock" comparison vs the OC 980TI model (Techspot mentioned it nearly hit 1.4ghz on default/auto) is quite telling, with Fury X still beating it.

Surprising it took a max OC 980TI (I'm assuming >1.5ghz boost, due to the OC over the already OC model) to beat a gimped Fury X OC.

This is with NV having the advantage of better DX11 drivers and a more mature uarch/drivers. Whereas Fury X debuts some new tech and its still young.

The next big battle will definitely be Battlefront later this year.