24 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

http://www.overclock...fury_x_review/1

http://www.techpower.../AMD/R9_Fury_X/

http://www.guru3d.co...x-review,1.html

http://hardocp.com/a...ew#.VYqfuPmqqkp

http://www.computerb...r9-fury-x-test/

http://www.tomshardw...ury-x,4196.html


5% slower than 980 Ti at 1440P, pretty even at 4K slight advantage witht he Fury X which could well be down to the HBM bandwidth on offer.
No indications that 4GB is a problem at 4k.
Power draw a bit lower than 290X
Very low temps and noise levels.

It's competitive which is great for AMD, but the 980TI looks like it still has the lead - (For now)

Hopefully as drivers come along, the performance will equal out at 1440P and below.

Edited by DV McKenna, 24 June 2015 - 06:48 AM.

[Goose]

So: Who can deal with a 120mm radiator on meh-length tubing, originating down at their PCI-E slots, and not at the LGA socket?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Goose, on 24 June 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

So: Who can deal with a 120mm radiator on meh-length tubing, originating down at their PCI-E slots, and not at the LGA socket?

People who are crazy.

[Catamount]

I couldn't have put it better myself, DV. Right now, Newegg has been failing to stock them (or there was some 60 second window where they were actually in stock that I missed while at work and only checking once/hour), but honestly, at this point, I think I may be more interested in the 980TI.

I really want AMD to succeed, to keep a market with healthy competition in which the players can really surprise and keep each other on their toes, but at $649, and honestly a little more ($670-$700 is the more common price on Newegg right now), Fury X just isn't the product that does this. It just doesn't offer anything compelling over its competition.

[johnyboy420]

drivers bro drivers give it a week or 2

[Catamount]

johnyboy420, on 25 June 2015 - 11:36 PM, said:

drivers bro drivers give it a week or 2

While it's not impossible that that's the cause of poor performance, that's not really an excuse that gets the Fury X off the hook in any satisfying manner. Remember, the 980TI is also brand spanking new. It only came out about three and a half weeks ago. Sure, it's basically an altered Titan X, but Fury X is basically an altered 285. Both will likely get some measure of performance improvement from drivers over time; neither is likely to see a quantum leap because of it.

The Fury X also has serious pump whine, a radiator that's very cumbersome, overclockability that's impossible to judge at best and abysmal at worst while 980TIs are hitting 1400-1500mhz, still consumes more power than a 980TI (though it may be more even draw), and is still a new debut vs a series that's now almost nine months old.


Is it a bad card? Hell no. Is it worthy of being priced at $649? That's hard to justify at this point. From a business standpoint, is this the card AMD needed? No. It's too little, too late to really grab a strong market position, and there's nothing about it that prevents potential buyers from snagging the somewhat more available 980 TI right now which means AMD has basically lost the entire mass early enthusiasm purchase. In fact, it's been 980TIs that have been flying off shelves right now. I only barely snagged one myself before all the stock tanked. People were waiting on purchases at the advice of reviewers, we got our answer, everyone bought Geforces.

AMD is now going to have to spend the entire Christmas season making up that loss, which means they're going to have to bend over backwards to out-price Nvidia, good for consumers in the short term, not good for AMD's immediate future, I think, since the Fury X has an expensive cooler to contend with.

[xWiredx]

Nvidia just announced a new pricing strategy to essentially price AMD out of the game, too. AMD will have to move to optimize for the Fury cards very quickly if they want to capture anything other than the fanboy share of the market. If AMD priced these down to $550, the card would be a better value than the 980 Ti (just barely) and probably capture more of the enthusiast market, but at $650 they aren't going anywhere.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

xWiredx, on 26 June 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Nvidia just announced a new pricing strategy to essentially price AMD out of the game, too. AMD will have to move to optimize for the Fury cards very quickly if they want to capture anything other than the fanboy share of the market. If AMD priced these down to $550, the card would be a better value than the 980 Ti (just barely) and probably capture more of the enthusiast market, but at $650 they aren't going anywhere.

Linky (unless i find it in the mean time)

[xWiredx]

DV McKenna, on 26 June 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

Linky (unless i find it in the mean time)

Yeah, I may have let that slip a little quick. Consider it as 'rumor' for now, and it might be isolated to certain markets where, historically, CPU and GPU manufacturers tend to have higher prices (meaning the US with its already competitive prices probably wouldn't see a difference).

[Flapdrol]

There's really no reason for nvidia to lower prices yet, the 980Ti outperforms the Fury X (slightly) for the same price, has more vram, dvi, hdmi 2, uses less power.

Also, nvidia has been selling their gpu's for more than the amd equivalent for years.

This rumor seems incredibly unlikely.

Edited by Flapdrol, 26 June 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Lordred]

Still happy with my Titan X

[Goose]

No buyers remorse over the 980Ti?

[Lordred]

None, I blow way past 6gb of Vram frequently.

[xWiredx]

Flapdrol, on 26 June 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

There's really no reason for nvidia to lower prices yet, the 980Ti outperforms the Fury X (slightly) for the same price, has more vram, dvi, hdmi 2, uses less power.

Also, nvidia has been selling their gpu's for more than the amd equivalent for years.

This rumor seems incredibly unlikely.

Just did a Google search to see who else might have gotten similar information. Fudzilla and SoftPedia of all people. Obviously take it with an entire shaker worth of salt, but typically these rumors end up being true to an extent. Looks like Europe might be the only spot that really enjoys any price cuts according to these articles (which is kind of what I was expecting).

You would have the new AMD Fury and FuryX cards to thank for this if it happens.

[Catamount]

Lordred, on 26 June 2015 - 01:24 PM, said:

None, I blow way past 6gb of Vram frequently.

The hell kind of unholy display setup do you have?

[Lord Letto]

Catamount, on 26 June 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

The hell kind of unholy display setup do you have?

666p AKA the Devils HD?

[Thorqemada]

The old 28nm process does limit the performance bcs you can not pack more or clock higher - in the end AMD GPUs age way better than NVida GPUs as AMD does put longer dev support into their Drivers for older generation GPUs.

In 15 years of AMD GPUs i had 1 single game that did not run and 2 RMAs - in 3 years Nviia i had 3 RMAs, bad technical Quality and Driver Support that ended right when the next GPU Gen was starting to become a rumor...

I do not support such a Company bcs thei E-Peen-Meter is initially 3% konger and they offer better Cheat-Options!

Edited by Thorqemada, 26 June 2015 - 08:44 PM.

[Goose]

Should'a bought EVGA, then …

[Flapdrol]

Never had to rma anything. "knock on wood"

No real driver issues either, worst was 2 weeks of subpar witcher 3 performance. Luckily the internet outrage made them fix that pretty quick.

I went used nvidia instead of used amd this time because I'm running a pentium cpu, and nvidia needs less cpu cycles, as seen in silly synthetic tests.

Next gpu might be amd, as dx12 will eliminate cpu overhead and I hope to have a faster cpu as well (for the dx11 games I still want to play).

[Lordred]

Catamount, on 26 June 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

The hell kind of unholy display setup do you have?

2160p