[TPU] 1080 TI specs leaks

[RussianSensation]

I get the whole monopoly thing, but isn't it a little funny when Nvidia tells themselves, "ZOMG its just us left now. Lets charge a BILLION DOLLARS for the mid range and a life of hard labor for the high end!"
I mean, there is a point at which people just won't be able to afford these things. For crying out loud, isn't $1,200 already there? A single GPU costing $1,200? Really guys? You guys bought that. You straight up bought that thing, lol. Throw away product. Lasts 12 months until it becomes a joke, and you guys bought it. Holy cow.

NV's strategy is a lot more intelligent than it seems.

1) Increasing prices to the moon means the next generation looks that much better. Recall how NV compared the $379 1070 to the $999 Titan Maxwell. Just imagine how amazing of a value the $449-499 Volta 2070 will be compared to the $1200 Titan XP! Imagine $1,400 1080 SLI performance in a GTX2080 for only $749; a bargain if it beats the 250W $800 1080Ti by 25-30%, while using 185W of power!

2) The Apple strategy - the most expensive SKUs make lower end SKUs seem like an amazing value.

GTX1080 seems like an amazing value compared to the Titan XP. The 1070 seems like an amazing value compared to the 1080.

In the past, cards like 8800GT/S, 6800GT, GeForce 4 Ti 4200, GTX570, made the flagship far less desirable.

3) The higher the GPUs are priced at launch, the more they will lose in resale value (on average). Knowing this, NV's customers are better off buying & reselling, buying & reselling. Think about it - they know mid-range 2080 will destroy the 1080Ti/Titan XP for less $. In fact, it can cost $800 and beat 1080Ti by just 20-25% and it will already make sense to sell the 1080Ti/Titan XP before they lose hundreds of dollars in resale value.

It will make sense to dump high-end Pascal to less knowledgeable PC gamers and upgrade. Repeat the cycle. This means not only does NV's strategy encourage its customers to upgrade EVERY generation, but by splitting the generation into 2 or even 3 parts, they are setting the generation up for at least 2 flagship upgrades over 2 years:

Kepler: 670/680 --> 780/OG Titan -> 780Ti (many bought 680, then 780Ti)

Maxwell: 980-> 980Ti

Pascal: 1080-> 1080Ti/Titan XP

It's conceivable that a high-end PC gamer went like this too:

680->780->780Ti->980->980Ti->1080->1080Ti/Titan XP.

That's 6-7 $500-700+ GPUs in 4 years. In the past, they would have purchased only roughly 3 @ $500-600 flagship Kepler + Maxwell + Pascal.

NV is making 2X the gross margin on the 1st half of a new generation by front-loading the mid-range marketing flagship at $500-700. Then, they double their revenue since this user is very likely to upgrade again to the Titan/Ti series. Haha. It's bloody brilliant way to milk the same customer over and over.

Furthermore, since Kepler (and including GF5 & 7), NV's architectures have not even been that future proof. That only instills more fear into high-end gamers that "I better dump my 2-year-old high-end NV card before its performance and resale value tank."

Your point of waiting for Volta is not a solution either because NV will launch mid-range first at $400-700 as they did during Kepler, Maxwell and Pascal generations. If you pay $700 for 2080, you get screwed. If you wait a year for 2080Ti and buy that for $800, you are screwed since 2019 Volta successor for $450 will be better again. The only way out is to buy and dump the soon to be replaced high-end NV card on PC noobs about a month before the launch of the next NV card -- keep some spare decent GPU for that 1 month of gaming.

Another way could be to buy the x70 series mid-range and upgrade on that 2-year cycle because the upfront cash outlay is 1/2 of a Ti card. I haven't figured out the best way to upgrade now because even AMD threw in the towel last gen with $650 Fury X -- and that card can easily be purchased for $379 barely a year later. Seems like buying flagship cards and holding onto to them is one of the worst ways to spend $$$ nowadays. [Of course if you have a 4K, 3440x1440 100Hz or 2560x1440 144Hz monitor, you may not have much choice but to pay these prices].

P.S. AMD and NV have to be nervous because the vast majority of PC gamers on Steam still run 1080p 60Hz and below. A $450 2070 will bottleneck 95%+ of Steam CPUs at 1080p 60Hz, and the extra performance will also be wasted. By 2018, the average PC gamer will need nothing more than a $250/300 GPU. The lag in PC gamers upgrading to monitors higher than 1080p 60Hz is immense compared to how fast GPUs are improving. VR is barely taking off...we desperately need next generation PS5/XB2 by 2019/2020 or by then a $150-200 dGPU will be super high-end in context of peasant 1080p resolution.

The reluctance of PC gamers to abandon 1080p and lower is simply mind-blowing.

 

[moonbogg]

Buy every release and sell every 6-12 months? No effing way. I won't jump through hoops every 6 months like an idiot just because Nvidia wants to take me for all I'm worth. I'll just upgrade when I need to and when the performance increase will be titanic, like going from 670's to 980ti's. That was one hell of jump with a huge wow factor. I'll do something like that again. Maybe Volta high end...oh, but those will probably be up to $1,700 each by then...so...ugh screw it. Maybe I'll just buy a console.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Buy every release and sell every 6-12 months? No effing way. I won't jump through hoops every 6 months like an idiot just because Nvidia wants to take me for all I'm worth. I'll just upgrade when I need to and when the performance increase will be titanic, like going from 670's to 980ti's. That was one hell of jump with a huge wow factor. I'll do something like that again. Maybe Volta high end...oh, but those will probably be up to $1,700 each by then...so...ugh screw it. Maybe I'll just buy a console.

Why buy a console when you can just buy a lower end dGPU? Why is it "I have to have the fastest highest end dGPU, or screw it, I'll buy a console"?

From a total cost of ownership perspective, abandoning your current game library in favor of a console is really a poor strategy. In fact, I recently considered buying an Xbox One S for our living room, but when I realized how much I'd have to spend on buying games I already had on PC, I instead built a nice mini-ITX living room PC.

Hardware cost was higher than a console (and the specs were much better too), but total cost for me is much, much cheaper since I can just use my Steam library.

 

[moonbogg]

Why buy a console when you can just buy a lower end dGPU? Why is it "I have to have the fastest highest end dGPU, or screw it, I'll buy a console"?

From a total cost of ownership perspective, abandoning your current game library in favor of a console is really a poor strategy. In fact, I recently considered buying an Xbox One S for our living room, but when I realized how much I'd have to spend on buying games I already had on PC, I instead built a nice mini-ITX living room PC.

Hardware cost was higher than a console (and the specs were much better too), but total cost for me is much, much cheaper since I can just use my Steam library.

I was being kind of sarcastic and venting about the price increases. I could never go console. Its because I have been used to paying around $4-$600 for flagship cards since, like, forever. Suddenly AMD has a friggin brain hemorrhage and can't compete, now prices of mid range cards are much more than the flagships used to cost. I've been priced out. That's a good reason to be upset.
I won't pay high end prices for mid range crap. Won't do it.
ATI selling out to AMD was the worst thing to happen to gamers. AMD fell apart and took ATI down with them. ATI was a good company and had fiercely competitive products. They suck now. They straight up suck because they got sucked into AMD's black hole of epic suckage and ruined it for everyone.
AMD should just take the damn cyanide pill and sell out to Intel or something. Let Intel make GPU's. Maybe they can compete.

 

[tviceman]

While the specs are believable given it's shader count and clock speeds ratio to bandwidth, I don't think Nvidia is releasing this card anytime soon. There is absolutely no reason to release this card. I think Nvidia is going to not release a 1080 TI, and instead refresh the pascal lineup with 1100 series cards (like they did with Kepler) and introduce a Geforce branded GP102, when Vega comes out.

I'm the OP, btw.

 

[Head1985]

NV's strategy is a lot more intelligent than it seems.

1) Increasing prices to the moon means the next generation looks that much better. Recall how NV compared the $379 1070 to the $999 Titan Maxwell. Just imagine how amazing of a value the $449-499 Volta 2070 will be compared to the $1200 Titan XP! Imagine $1,400 1080 SLI performance in a GTX2080 for only $749; a bargain if it beats the 250W $800 1080Ti by 25-30%, while using 185W of power!

2) The Apple strategy - the most expensive SKUs make lower end SKUs seem like an amazing value.

GTX1080 seems like an amazing value compared to the Titan XP. The 1070 seems like an amazing value compared to the 1080.

In the past, cards like 8800GT/S, 6800GT, GeForce 4 Ti 4200, GTX570, made the flagship far less desirable.

3) The higher the GPUs are priced at launch, the more they will lose in resale value (on average). Knowing this, NV's customers are better off buying & reselling, buying & reselling. Think about it - they know mid-range 2080 will destroy the 1080Ti/Titan XP for less $. In fact, it can cost $800 and beat 1080Ti by just 20-25% and it will already make sense to sell the 1080Ti/Titan XP before they lose hundreds of dollars in resale value.

It will make sense to dump high-end Pascal to less knowledgeable PC gamers and upgrade. Repeat the cycle. This means not only does NV's strategy encourage its customers to upgrade EVERY generation, but by splitting the generation into 2 or even 3 parts, they are setting the generation up for at least 2 flagship upgrades over 2 years:

Kepler: 670/680 --> 780/OG Titan -> 780Ti (many bought 680, then 780Ti)

Maxwell: 980-> 980Ti

Pascal: 1080-> 1080Ti/Titan XP

It's conceivable that a high-end PC gamer went like this too:

680->780->780Ti->980->980Ti->1080->1080Ti/Titan XP.

That's 6-7 $500-700+ GPUs in 4 years. In the past, they would have purchased only roughly 3 @ $500-600 flagship Kepler + Maxwell + Pascal.

NV is making 2X the gross margin on the 1st half of a new generation by front-loading the mid-range marketing flagship at $500-700. Then, they double their revenue since this user is very likely to upgrade again to the Titan/Ti series. Haha. It's bloody brilliant way to milk the same customer over and over.

Furthermore, since Kepler (and including GF5 & 7), NV's architectures have not even been that future proof. That only instills more fear into high-end gamers that "I better dump my 2-year-old high-end NV card before its performance and resale value tank."

Your point of waiting for Volta is not a solution either because NV will launch mid-range first at $400-700 as they did during Kepler, Maxwell and Pascal generations. If you pay $700 for 2080, you get screwed. If you wait a year for 2080Ti and buy that for $800, you are screwed since 2019 Volta successor for $450 will be better again. The only way out is to buy and dump the soon to be replaced high-end NV card on PC noobs about a month before the launch of the next NV card -- keep some spare decent GPU for that 1 month of gaming.

Another way could be to buy the x70 series mid-range and upgrade on that 2-year cycle because the upfront cash outlay is 1/2 of a Ti card. I haven't figured out the best way to upgrade now because even AMD threw in the towel last gen with $650 Fury X -- and that card can easily be purchased for $379 barely a year later. Seems like buying flagship cards and holding onto to them is one of the worst ways to spend $$$ nowadays. [Of course if you have a 4K, 3440x1440 100Hz or 2560x1440 144Hz monitor, you may not have much choice but to pay these prices].

P.S. AMD and NV have to be nervous because the vast majority of PC gamers on Steam still run 1080p 60Hz and below. A $450 2070 will bottleneck 95%+ of Steam CPUs at 1080p 60Hz, and the extra performance will also be wasted. By 2018, the average PC gamer will need nothing more than a $250/300 GPU. The lag in PC gamers upgrading to monitors higher than 1080p 60Hz is immense compared to how fast GPUs are improving. VR is barely taking off...we desperately need next generation PS5/XB2 by 2019/2020 or by then a $150-200 dGPU will be super high-end in context of peasant 1080p resolution.

The reluctance of PC gamers to abandon 1080p and lower is simply mind-blowing.

Its 100% true and i think best way to upgrade is buy every 2 years mid-range cards x70/x80 for 400-700USD or BIG SKU like 780TI/980TI.You get this way 50% performance every 2 years.
upgrading from 680 to 780 then 780Ti is just retarded.

BTW x70 cards are worse every generation(gimped 970 and 1070).I think in future best way is buy cutdown BIG sku like 980TI and then again cutdown BIG SKU pascal and then volta.
BIG sku have far more OC headroom and are only slighly cutdown from full SKU(not like gimped 970 and 1070) so you get for your money far more.

 

[nerp]

Video cards are about to reach the point where they're stuck like intel with only minor incremental improvements. Give it a few years.

 

[jpiniero]

Video cards are about to reach the point where they're stuck like intel with only minor incremental improvements. Give it a few years.

I don't think that's necessarily the case... but they will have to keep hiking the prices. Pascal for the most part is only faster because of the much higher clock speeds; but I don't know how much more they can go.

 

[moonbogg]

You guys should be sad that I can't afford to buy GPU's anymore. When Moonbogg gets a cold, 95% of gamers everywhere get the flu.

 

[DamZe]

The reluctance of PC gamers to abandon 1080p and lower is simply mind-blowing.

Not really, most people don't want to chase the upgrade carrot on the stick. With 1440p/4K you are locked into buying high/ultra-end GPUs to fuel the newest AAA titles with high detail settings and still get playable framerates (60+), they simply don't have the financial means, and with nVIDIA's milking strategy and seeing how their card seem to age faster than the competition, it would be too costly for the majority of PC gamers. The 10% crowd willing to spend 300$+ on a GPU are getting milked, the rest is conservative with how much they spend. If everyone were to run out and buy a 4K monitor, who knows how jacked the prices would be for these high end cards, as it this now they are niche products. And seeing how many developers make lazy ports on PC, a lot of that horsepower would perhaps never get used properly, we all know about those games that perform like trash no matter how powerful your setup is, this is something I think plays into why most PC gamers are reluctant to go 1440p and up.

BTW I fully agree with your analysis of nVIDIAs business strategy in milking their high end customer base twice per generation.

 

[ocre]

Not really, most people don't want to chase the upgrade carrot on the stick. With 1440p/4K you are locked into buying high/ultra-end GPUs to fuel the newest AAA titles with high detail settings and still get playable framerates (60+), they simply don't have the financial means, and with nVIDIA's milking strategy and seeing how their card seem to age faster than the competition, it would be too costly for the majority of PC gamers. The 10% crowd willing to spend 300$+ on a GPU are getting milked, the rest is conservative with how much they spend. If everyone were to run out and buy a 4K monitor, who knows how jacked the prices would be for these high end cards, as it this now they are niche products. And seeing how many developers make lazy ports on PC, a lot of that horsepower would perhaps never get used properly, we all know about those games that perform like trash no matter how powerful your setup is, this is something I think plays into why most PC gamers are reluctant to go 1440p and up.

BTW I fully agree with your analysis of nVIDIAs business strategy in milking their high end customer base twice per generation.

Reading your post, it seems like there is some conflicting logic in the first part and then being in agreement with such analysis.

I think there simply exist this lack of understanding which is evident in the post on so many threads. Actually, thread after thread and forum after forum. This is not an attempt by be to degrade or flame, just want to make that clear before I go in any further.

There are a lot of people on forums who are completely perf per dollar oriented when it comes to gpus and perhaps pc components in general. This is 1000%, their right and their prerogative. I say, what ever makes you happy. For some of those people, they get this extra pleasure feeling like they got a good deal. Its the thrill for them. This is what makes it worth it, saving money..a good deal..etc

But then there are set of people that enjoy spending their hard earned money differently. This is where the lack of understanding comes in. The first group simply cannot grasp this second group. So much so that they may consider them dumb, stupid, or sheeple. There is this real lack of understanding from the first group and this can lead to frustration..distaste..anger.

Trying to understand each view, its easy to come up short. Both have validity, even though its common to see one totally discredit the other. While its not difficult to understand the value mindset (dollar wise), I think nearly everyone can see that point of view. Even those who spend loads on hardware, it may not be as difficult for them to see this other groups mindset..even if they dont buy hardware based on it. But I think its really not so difficult to see the other side, that even the most die hard value orientated people should be able to, if they took the time.

Everyone should enjoy spending their money. It makes earning it a little sweeter. Most purchases are not out of necessity, even if you may be convinced that many are. When a person spends their money, its kind of should be on the things they want to buy. And there is this reward in being able to do so.

There are people who love hardware, they live buying new hardware. They love to spend their money on the things enjoy buying. In these purchases, their reward is not in how much cash they saved buy not getting the item they wanted...which its not for anyone else to decide what it is they want. Some enjoy getting expensive hardware that is out of reach to the masses. Some just want the best... There are many cases. But these people, they get pleasure in spending their money on things they want.

I am sure there there could be a few people already to counter what I wrote so far. See, I am not a big spender when it comes to pc hw these days.. I dont even use my pc much at all anymore. Yet I feel compelled to post my thoughts, which have been festering for sometime.

let's take the value minded thought process out of gpus and cpus, so that we may challenge this inability to see the other side. I am sitting in my house right now, one I pay on every month. I live in a very decent neighborhood. It's pricey and out of reach for a portion of the country, but thats not my driving factor at all in this purchase. It made me incredibly happy to buy such a home. Its nice place for my wife, kids..our family. But...
Did I need such a "nice" home? I put quotations because while I consider it nice, others may call it expensive. Surely, we could live in a shack if we had to. I mean, I have before. But why stop there? We could live in a tent, what about all the other things I buy. Why? If you really think about it, we dont need much at all and most of our purchases are for some sort of pleasure.
From cars to clothes, jewelry, food, restaurants, to...video cards.

People get different things out of their purchases, cause these things mean something different to each person.
Its not difficult to understand the value pc guys. It's also not difficult to understand that some people enjoy pc hardware in a level that buying high end stuff gives them a joy and happiness that makes it totally worth it. It's their money.

Perhaps now I will say what my post was swinging around all along:
It may very well be true that nvidia knows their market.

This milking and forcing talk is absurd. Very few need to buy gpu. No one is forced. People buy them because they want to and we all get pleasure from our purchases in different ways. Spend your money the way that makes u happy. Not on how others say you should

 

[Ranulf]

The reluctance of PC gamers to abandon 1080p and lower is simply mind-blowing.

Hardly. Crappy economy, overpriced uber monitors (gsync especially) and the benefit of having to buy a new card every year (and resell old) makes one quite reluctant. Certainly the performance of those new mid-high end cards at $350+ for 1440p let alone 4k is not that impressive. Some have had trouble on new games at 1080p. Far smarter to spend money elsewhere, like coin mining rigs.

Decent freesync/gsync monitors that don't break the bank are finally showing up 2+ years later from all the big hubub.

 

[CakeMonster]

I couldn't care less what kind of memory tech they use. I will make the usual price/performance consideration and either get the card or not.

If they sacrifice too much bandwidth in their quest for lowering production costs, that will probably impact my decision negatively, unless there are other properties in the chip that makes up for it plus then some.

 

[Headfoot]

Again, It's probably not about the cost savings, it's about ensuring the Titan XP is undeinably better.

And if its true it will cost them my sale and many other buyers like me who can see through the artificial segmentation. Waiting out a generation is a perfectly valid option for me.

 

[biostud]

Could it be 10Gb 320-bit gddr5x?

 

[HannooFX]

NV's strategy is a lot more intelligent than it seems.
Stuff

Very well said

 

[jpiniero]

And if its true it will cost them my sale and many other buyers like me who can see through the artificial segmentation. Waiting out a generation is a perfectly valid option for me.

I'm not sure what else they could do to ensure the XP is faster though.

 

[Thinker_145]

Would like to chime in on the monitor debate. See for someone playing on a 32" screen it becomes impossible to go back to a 24" screen. However had they choose never to buy a 32" screen they would have been far more happier with 24" than they would by going back to 24" from 32". So people become deluded by the upgrade and think worse of the lower end option than it actually is. Same is the case with resolution.

I am very careful in upgrading my monitor size and resolution because I know it's permanent and it increases multiple costs going forward like more expensive internal components and pricier to replace a dead monitor. This is something I have learned to be true for all of technology. Buying something high end isn't a one time cost ever. Things will always die and then it really sucks that you have to do it all over again.

Believe it or not but sitting close to a 24/27" screen is highly immersive however difficult it might be for 32/40" master race to understand that.

I maintain PPI is overrated for gaming image quality. I also find it funny how 144hz seems to be targeted more at 1440p monitors than 1080p because it absolutely makes more sense with the latter. What the flying f*** is the point of 144hz 1440p when even with top end cards you need to go all the way down to a mix of high/medium settings to get that sort of framerates in AAA games? Cheaper 100hz 1440p should have been an option.

I have no issue with latency so I am not gonna pay for GSync. I actually hate that it exists as it decreases the value of monitors which only come with a G-Sync version.

The lack of quality 144hz 1080p(where it actually makes most sense) has been a jarring issue for me personally. I just cannot get myself to buy a TN monitor just for 144hz. Now we finally are getting some good monitors but G-Sync comes to ruin the show making some monitors terribly over priced for those who would rather save $150.

I also believe we should really start to see some cheaper high refresh rate monitors already. They offer phenomenally poor value in terms of screen size when you compare them to 60hz monitors.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[railven]

While the specs are believable given it's shader count and clock speeds ratio to bandwidth, I don't think Nvidia is releasing this card anytime soon. There is absolutely no reason to release this card. I think Nvidia is going to not release a 1080 TI, and instead refresh the pascal lineup with 1100 series cards (like they did with Kepler) and introduce a Geforce branded GP102, when Vega comes out.

I'm the OP, btw.

Where my money is. I was one of the first to say big Kepler wouldn't be seen during GTX 600 series because AMD had nothing to compete, and here we are again. By the time Vega rolls around, Big Pascal will be needed. Until then, let the Titan XP rake in the >$1,000 dollars. Since it's an already cut down chip anyways.

This milking and forcing talk is absurd. Very few need to buy gpu. No one is forced. People buy them because they want to and we all get pleasure from our purchases in different ways. Spend your money the way that makes u happy. Not on how others say you should

And there it is. Well said.

 

[Headfoot]

I'm not sure what else they could do to ensure the XP is faster though.

Less shaders - same memory tech. So basically the same as every previous 1st and 2nd tier card. Perhaps even a reduced size bus like biostud suggested. I could see 320bit w/ GDDR5X. Titan XP would remain on top in memory capacity which is important, and in shader count. Gives a nice 8 -10 -12 ram spread too

 

[Sweepr]

According to Zol.com the card will be launched in January 2017:

http://geek.zol.com.cn/606/6062347.html

 

[tviceman]

If nvidia releases a card called the 1080 TI, then Vega will be utter crap.

What's my logic in that, you say? If Vega is truly competitive, the best response for Nvidia (either just before or after Vega launches) would be to refresh the entire pascal lineup with "new" cards at different prices INSTEAD of just price cuts. Of course new product launches have upfront costs, but new products with better prices and slightly higher performance is ALWAYS a better sell and attention grabber than price cuts on old existing products.

So with all that said, if Nvidia were to release a 1080 TI in January to slot in along side their would-be 8 month old lineup, Nvidia will have come to the conclusion that refreshing the lineup to take on upcoming AMD cards is not worth it, which in my book would be a big omen tacked onto all the existing warning signs for Vega.

I still believe this 1080 TI will be called the GeForce GTX 1180, and Nvidia will eventually release a full functional GP102 consumer/prosumer card as the GTX 1180 TI or Titan X (the third).

 

[happy medium]

If nvidia releases a card called the 1080 TI, then Vega will be utter crap.

What's my logic in that, you say? If Vega is truly competitive, the best response for Nvidia (either just before or after Vega launches) would be to refresh the entire pascal lineup with "new" cards at different prices INSTEAD of just price cuts. Of course new product launches have upfront costs, but new products with better prices and slightly higher performance is ALWAYS a better sell and attention grabber than price cuts on old existing products.

So with all that said, if Nvidia were to release a 1080 TI in January to slot in along side their would-be 8 month old lineup, Nvidia will have come to the conclusion that refreshing the lineup to take on upcoming AMD cards is not worth it, which in my book would be a big omen tacked onto all the existing warning signs for Vega.

I still believe this 1080 TI will be called the GeForce GTX 1180, and Nvidia will eventually release a full functional GP102 consumer/prosumer card as the GTX 1180 TI or Titan X (the third).

I agree with you.

The release of the 1080ti means Vega will not compete, and when Vega is released we will see the 1180 and 1170 on the horizon.


https://www.techpowerup.com/226290/nvidia-preparing-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-for-2017-ces-launch

 

[Glo.]

I agree with you.

The release of the 1080ti means Vega will not compete, and when Vega is released we will see the 1180 and 1170 on the horizon.


https://www.techpowerup.com/226290/nvidia-preparing-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-for-2017-ces-launch

And what are you basing this on?

What if Small Vega is the one to compete with GTX 1080 Ti?

 

[happy medium]

And what are you basing this on?

What if Small Vega is the one to compete with GTX 1080 Ti?

small Vega A.K.A. the 490 should compete with the 1080. I think big vega is the new fury.