But what about that direct AMD and NVIDIA comparisons? Despite what we might have expected going in, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X actually scaled in CrossFire better than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti. This comes not only in terms of average frame rate increases, but also in lower frame time variances that result in a smoother gaming experience. In several cases the extra scalability demonstrated by the Fury X allowed its dual-GPU performance to surpass a pair of GTX 980 Ti cards even though in a single GPU configuration the GeForce card was the winner. GRID 2 at 4K is one example of this result as is Bioshock Infinite at 4K. And even in a game like Crysis 3 at 4K where we saw NVIDIA's card scale by a fantastic 84%, AMD's Fury X card scaled by 95%!
This is a great step for AMD to prove that its architectures and driver development are on the right track. There are still games where AMD needs to play catch up, like Grand Theft Auto V, but our results here today prove that the company CAN do it. But PC gamers know that timeliness is easily just as important as any other aspect of multi-GPU driver support - getting CrossFire integrated for Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, weeks after release would mean that many hardcore gamers would have already bought and finished the game. The day one experience means a lot and AMD needs to prove it can keep up with the team and money invested in that at NVIDIA.
makes fury x2 looks promising
anyway, hopefully people stop calling them nvidia chills and claiming no one tests maxwell sli with fcat.
Oddly enough every "review" they did where crossfire stuttered more than SLI ended with a scathing conclusion about how great SLI was and how bad crossfire was.Today's table is a little different than recent ones as we are not comparing directly between the AMD Fury X and GTX 980 Ti, and instead we are comparing single GPU to 2-GPUs and to 3-GPUs.
They can't say much positive about AMD, they have to delve off into negative a overall stance, this time requiring some driver complaints.
Working with NV in secret on FCAT, then basically dropping it after maxwell came out looking like a dog (sure they put ~3-4 games through 980 sli at some point, I wouldn't put it past them to have selective ones at that).But what about that direct AMD and NVIDIA comparisons? Despite what we might have expected going in, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X actually scaled in CrossFire better than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti. This comes not only in terms of average frame rate increases, but also in lower frame time variances that result in a smoother gaming experience. In several cases the extra scalability demonstrated by the Fury X allowed its dual-GPU performance to surpass a pair of GTX 980 Ti cards even though in a single GPU configuration the GeForce card was the winner. GRID 2 at 4K is one example of this result as is Bioshock Infinite at 4K. And even in a game like Crysis 3 at 4K where we saw NVIDIA's card scale by a fantastic 84%, AMD's Fury X card scaled by 95%!
This is a great step for AMD to prove that its architectures and driver development are on the right track. There are still games where AMD needs to play catch up, like Grand Theft Auto V, but our results here today prove that the company CAN do it. But PC gamers know that timeliness is easily just as important as any other aspect of multi-GPU driver support - getting CrossFire integrated for Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, weeks after release would mean that many hardcore gamers would have already bought and finished the game. The day one experience means a lot and AMD needs to prove it can keep up with the team and money invested in that at NVIDIA.
The driver team has told me several times over the past two weeks that they should have a testable driver to fix the CrossFire problems “in 2 to 3 months.” Until then, buyers that consider a multi-GPU solution a goal or a requirement will want to seriously debate dropping Radeon cards from consideration.
Real world gaming is usually done with the cards in a case. Inside the case, the GTX 980 TI in SLI might prove to throttle a whole lot more than an open bench test. For a single card, open bench test might not show a difference in performance because of throttling. However, in a enclosed case, I wouldn't be shocked at all if the GTX 980 SLI configuration is less than optimal. The boost speed would a lot lower. I'm willing to bet that there would be atleast a 5% difference in performance just from moving the bench testing from open bench to a case.
This is where the AIO Fury X will start to show its strengths. There won't be any kind of throttling in the case. I can't say the same with the GTX 980 SLI. In a real world scenerio (inside a case) I think the Fury X in crossfire would show that it is faster than the reference design GTX 980 SLI due to the throttling.
They had them lying around from the past reviews, I see no reason why they would fork 1300$ just to get two more reference cards.. the difference is most probably minimal.
3 reference GTX 980ti's stacked together would throttle and lose even more performance but in their defense when they tested 290X CF the market didn't offer non reference 290x's
So, PCPER tests Fury X against factory OC models, some of the best ones at that, in multi-GPU battle on an OPEN BENCH setup, best case scenario for the air cooled 980Ti (negating the water cooler advantage of Fury X completely!) and it still wins!
XDMA pwning!
Basically they stacked the odds against Fury X badly, they tried to make Fury X fail but sadly they couldn't, unless they start throwing fake numbers into their charts.
Reminds me of the other CF vs SLI reviews recently, where people used GameWorks features and Fury X doesn't even give a damn, it just pwns hard anyway. heh
Edit: And old drivers too, not the 15.7 which boosts Fury X by 5-20% in a lot of games.
Sorry I'm just loving this thread, the spin on both sides is rather educational..."They" as in PCper didn't stack the odds or anything dumb like that in favor of the 980 ti's. They simply used cards that were sent to them to review. Why are people so dramatic?
"They" as in PCper didn't stack the odds or anything dumb like that in favor of the 980 ti's. They simply used cards that were sent to them to review. Why are people so dramatic?
Sf11 sorry man but AMD literally can't win with double standards like those... If it isn't noise then its heat, if it isn't heat then its oc , if it isn't oc then its etc.You mean they didn't went and buy multiple retail samples when the the R290X was released to investigate throttling? They didn't do the same for Fury X to investigate the "quieter but annoying compared to the rush of air from the 980Ti that's much louder" scenario?
Its good to see some people fighting in AMD's corner in this thread. The results are good from the testing and the cards did good. I'm glad there is a GPU battle going on because the day Nvidia stands alone is the day we all lose. This is a fun round. Now to be fair, they should have tested EVGA 980ti Hybrids since the AMD solution has water cooling. Clearly the testing was unfair and done to make AMD look good. :sneaky:
Its good to see some people fighting in AMD's corner in this thread. The results are good from the testing and the cards did good. I'm glad there is a GPU battle going on because the day Nvidia stands alone is the day we all lose. This is a fun round. Now to be fair, they should have tested EVGA 980ti Hybrids since the AMD solution has water cooling. Clearly the testing was unfair and done to make AMD look good. :sneaky: