[PcPer] 2- and 3-Way Multi-GPU performance review (Fury X, 980Ti)

[Keysplayr]

Don't forget to turn off specific options too, I mean, you don't want to give any side an unfair advantage do you

No, I do not. One's best against the others best. What more can we ask for?

 

[Erenhardt]

I bet nv and amd drivers are so similar you could just swap your drivers and it wouldn't change a thing.
Are drugs legal in US? Some people seem to overdose...

 

[Zanovar]

No, I do not. One's best against the others best. What more can we ask for?

be careful there keys ,youre almost sounding rational.*checks keys temp*.i kid.

 

[3DVagabond]

They tend to not follow in AMD's footsteps. Swallow pride and copy them? Spin it as something totally different I guess is another option.

Considering AMD has so many industry firsts, I'd say it's hard not to have to "follow in AMD's footsteps" at times. I don't think that will matter at all. I just think that nVidia isn't overly happy supporting something that doesn't really generate much of a return. They'd rather have you replace your current card than get a second one.

 

[SolMiester]

Hmm, I guess this just shows that Nvidia needs to implement their own version of XDMA SLI soon, will it be coming with Pascal? If pascal has a good SLI solution that may be my next upgrade, though it depends if AMD has another gen out around then as well.

I believe its called NVlink...not sure if its on Pascal though!

 

[n0x1ous]

I believe its called NVlink...not sure if its on Pascal though!

Yes its slated for Pascal

 

[alcoholbob]

A pair of R9 Fury's and a Samsung UE850 Freesync 4K monitor could be an amazing combination. The only issue is you have to wait a couple weeks to a month after each game release to get a crossfire profile. So as long as you don't play any games at launch, AMD is for you.

 

[Silverforce11]

They tend to not follow in AMD's footsteps. Swallow pride and copy them? Spin it as something totally different I guess is another option.

GDDR3, GDDR5 and HBM... so no, that's not true.

Is NVLink a HPC only implementation or will it be in consumer GPUs?

 

[monstercameron]

GDDR3, GDDR5 and HBM... so no, that's not true.

Is NVLink a HPC only implementation or will it be in consumer GPUs?

afaik, it needs cpu support and isnt just some kind of special pcie protocol...

 

[Silverforce11]

A pair of R9 Fury's and a Samsung UE850 Freesync 4K monitor could be an amazing combination. The only issue is you have to wait a couple weeks to a month after each game release to get a crossfire profile. So as long as you don't play any games at launch, AMD is for you.

Only in GameWorks titles.

GTA V, CF was ready on release.
Dirt Rally is in Alpha Access on steam, fully functional CF.

Almost every other recent non-GW title.. CF was available very early.

Evolve, Ryse, SoM, Alien Isolation (SLI was broken with stutters), Trine, Talos.. etc

A few games with Unreal Engine and OpenGL lack CF/SLI due to those specific engines.

 

[Silverforce11]

afaik, it needs cpu support and isnt just some kind of special pcie protocol...

That is what I thought from reading the info released. Seems to be a HPC implementation with unique setups.

 

[bowler484]

AMD's scaling has been superior for awhile now. Nobody should be surprised about the results. Time for some myth busting though.

PCper using the customer Nvidia cards makes zero difference in the results. The clocks always default to the slowest card which would be the reference cooler version.

Biggest myth bust is performance of 15.7 drivers.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review-20.html

Does anybody here seriously think AMD gained up to 20% more fps and said absolutely nothing about it? That's better gains than 12.11 never settle had and we heard about that everywhere. Doesn't matter what is believed because Hardware canucks retested and there were no gains because 15.7 is simply 15.5 with other features added.

 

[Hitman928]

AMD's scaling has been superior for awhile now. Nobody should be surprised about the results. Time for some myth busting though.

PCper using the customer Nvidia cards makes zero difference in the results. The clocks always default to the slowest card which would be the reference cooler version.

Biggest myth bust is performance of 15.7 drivers.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review-20.html

Does anybody here seriously think AMD gained up to 20% more fps and said absolutely nothing about it? That's better gains than 12.11 never settle had and we heard about that everywhere. Doesn't matter what is believed because Hardware canucks retested and there were no gains because 15.7 is simply 15.5 with other features added.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/6#.VaHkYPlkN1A

With the new Catalyst 15.7 driver we have found performance has skyrocketed in Far Cry 4 on the Fury series.

I don't know what the deal is, other sites were showing Fury having performance leads over nvidia in far cry 4 with the earlier driver already, but hardocp is saying they saw a large gain with the new drivers. It could be specific games/settings, but it's not like people were pulling it out of thin air.

 

[bowler484]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/6#.VaHkYPlkN1A

I don't know what the deal is, other sites were showing Fury having performance leads over nvidia in far cry 4 with the earlier driver already, but hardocp is saying they saw a large gain with the new drivers. It could be specific games/settings, but it's not like people were pulling it out of thin air.

They weren't pulling it out of thin air. There are improvements. But the real improvements and the ones being claimed in this thread aren't the same at all.

AMD's own words for performance optimizations for 15.7

Performance Optimizations versus AMD Catalyst™ Omega Driver
Single GPU performance on Windows® 8.1 based system:

Up to 7% in Far Cry® 4 on AMD Radeon™ R7 and AMD Radeon™ R9 200 series and up *

Up to 10% in Tomb Raider on AMD Radeon™ R7 and AMD Radeon™ R9 200 series and up *

Let's look at Hardocp and what they are claiming.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/7#.VaJRU_lVhBc

From the Fury X review with the original driver.

FC4 - 1440p, SMAA, 16x AF, Ultra, Soft shadows, enhanced godrays, hbao+

Fury X - 33.3 fps.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/6#.VaJSZflVhBc

FC4 - 1440p, SMAA, 16x AF, Ultra, Soft shadows, enhanced godrays, hbao+

Fury Strix review. Exact same setting with new driver.

Fury Strix - 30.7 fps.

So the Fury X using the older driver is 8.5% faster than Fury using the new driver at the same settings. That figure falls in line exactly with other sites as to how much faster the Fury X is.

I don't think it's fair for anyone considering a gpu right to read information about a 5-20% gain in a lot of games when the driver maker is only claiming 7-10% in two games and another site completely reran tests with the new driver and saw results within the margin of error for all the games in his suite.

As long as you have the truth in front of you, pick the card from the vendor you want and enjoy the heck out of it. :thumbsup: