AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
(With 100MHz OC on core)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2937...x-tech-specs-and-design-details-revealed.html
Dictator93
Member
So why are there no benches yet? When does the card actually launch?
edit: oh, that is a nice coincidence. Benches above!
edit 2: rather untransparent as to what settings beyond "4K"
edit 3: no "appendix 2" images?
edit: oh, that is a nice coincidence. Benches above!
edit 2: rather untransparent as to what settings beyond "4K"
edit 3: no "appendix 2" images?
You just beat me by a minute, just note that these benchmarks are from AMD and not PC Gamer.
These are not supposed to be posted, the settings would be in the appendix as noted at the bottom. PC Gamer went ahead with just the flashy bit of the deck and didnt post the appendix.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
So faster than a 980 Ti in those hand-picked benchmarks.
Just eyeballing, it would also mean faster than Titan X since 980Ti is barely slower than Titan X.
Interesting that Mordor is included
Well 4K will put to rest some fears of VRAM being a problem I suppose. That is a very conservative overclock, I hope it can be pushed A LOT more than that on water cooling.
4900 SEK (530€
for 390x3900 SEK (420€
for 390In Sweden, shit, the Fury X is going to be 8000 SEK or something...
The fury X price of $649 translated to SEK is 5200. Even with Swedish tax of 25% that'd be 6500 SEK. Which would be the "normal" price in Sweden (usually it's USD price times 10, no matter if 1 USD is 7 SEK or 8 or whatever).
Used to getting screwed on console hardware prices, and game prices, but never been this screwed on PC hardware...
Edit:
And in contrast, the 290x on tri-x coolers costs 3400 SEK (370 Euro or 420 USD, including taxes).
anchorman128
Member
I mean I'm not doubting that the 980ti is faster in some scenarios, but Witcher 3, Far Cry 4, AC Unity, Shadow of Mordoor, Bioshock Infinite, Crisis 3, BF4. Come on hand picked? It not like these games aren't totally benchmarked in nearly every review.
I mean they are even posting Nvidia optimized games. Crisis 3, Witcher 3, Bioshock Infinite, have all traditionally run better on NV hardware.
Dictator93
Member
Actually we do not know what the settings are, so we cannot even say really.
Textures could be set to medium, low, high, whatever.
2 of those games you mentioned as being "Nvidia optimized" are AMD sponsored.
And so it begins! (Of course these are benches supplied by AMD themselves so take with a grain of salt). Still, it looks like we thought it might. Fury X ~ Titan X ~ 980Ti are pretty close, at least in those games at 4k.
Yeah, and we really have to see the frametimes too.
Typically the press decks dont even have OC numbers, I think this is a first. And going by the PC Gamer article, it seems like they're encouraging media to OC them.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Just eyeballing, it would also mean faster than Titan X since 980Ti is barely slower than Titan X.
Interesting that Mordor is included
Looks that way from these benches. Probably overclocks better too.
Surely though, 4K was the big worry because there were concerns that 4GB VRAM was too little. But yeah, I would like to see more benchmarks, and independent ones too.
But so far looks promising for a $650 card.
anchorman128
Member
In the list of like 10 games, yes that doesn't detract from the fact that if you look at a 980ti review, they benchmark the same games and more.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/
However, I guess I didn't remember correctly about the others. Still, W3, Batman, and others definitely favor nvidia.
If you are still skeptical, as I am, just wait for reviews. I know I am, before I make any judgement. I'm just saying that's a lot of games and some of which that are optimized for NV to say they are cherry picked.
If this thing is 50C at load, it should have crazy mad room for overclocking. I can't wait to see some of the AIB superclocks.
Pagusas
Elden Member
I wonder if thats with or without gameworks features enabled. I wouldnt buy a $600+ card to not turn on every feature.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
No I meant more in the sense we don't know the settings, AMD have supplied these themselves, etc.
This bit is cool:
You’ll find an LED-illuminated Radeon logo on the face and outer edge of the card, as well as a new feature: 8 small lights located above the 8-pin power connectors. Dubbed “GPU tach” (as in “tachometer”
The design is the best they've ever come up with imo.
They are focusing on 4k because that's what they are being called out over at the moment. They have to do something about the notion that "4GB isn't enough for 4k gaming!" that seems to be prevalent in the enthusiast community.
These cards are aimed at the very top end of the folks who buy GPU's so they have to convince those people to but this one instead of the Nvidia 980Ti at the same pricepoint.
anchorman128
Member
Oh, I completely agree, however others are saying the details are in a footer left out by PC gamer. Don't know if that's true or not, just nice to know the ballpark it is in reguardless of settings.
I totally agree though, when I heard about the GPU usage LED's I thought that was awesome. Being able to look through your case window for a rough estimate of usage without an external tool is nice.
Yes, and AMD is touting pretty highly on its ability to OC the card with their cooling solution. 100MHz is a very modest OC compared to what other people have pulled off air cooled R9 2XX series cards.
I would love to see on of these bad boys benchmarked with a 250-400MHz OC if it's possible.
Looks like no custom versions for Fury X. Only Fury and Fury Nano.
Yes.
The appendix is included so that the reviewers can verify the numbers themselves.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah, the OC headroom on the card is one of the most exciting aspects, as they've made a big deal about how well these GPUs overclock. Cooler supports up to 500 watts of thermal capacity apparently.
PCWorld said:
5fps faster than a 980Ti for the same price, in a liquid cooled package that has a ton of OC headroom is actually pretty great.
I do think the graph still shows how we're not anywhere near ready to really master 4k just yet. Not on a single card, at least.
Nice. Card should have a lot of oc headroom. Kind of crazy the card is only 7.5 inches long too. Time to get my first liquid cooled card.
HazySaiyan
Banned
I think I might just get a 970 or a 980. The few benchmarks I've seen for the 390 and 390X are pretty good and they trade blows with the 970 and 980, but that power consumption is just too much. I'm only running a 7950 ATM, I don't much fancy increasing the consumption by over 100 watts. Besides I don't need that 8GB frame buffer as I only play at 1080p and I have no plans to get a new monitor and/or go Crossfire.
Plus you can still get Arkham Knight over here which is cool.
Plus you can still get Arkham Knight over here which is cool.
anchorman128
Member
HBM2, Pascal, and R9 4XX is when I believe we will see consistent 4k games at 60+fps. The bandwidth of HBM2 and 8GB+ along with a new node process and architecture improvements should make this next generation the biggest jump in quite a long while.
Dreamwriter
Member
I'd be much more interested in how it handles VR content at 90+fps. Soon those are going to be the new very top end folks, since any frame drops mean VR sickness, and 90fps is the minimum for a true feeling of "being there".
Felix Lighter
Member
Those are definitely promising benchmarks. Looking forward to the reviews.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah true, but that is not coming until a good way into 2016 and will likely be expensive initially.
Also, for those with the budget, I think AMD will be releasing their 8GB Fury X2 (or Fury 'Maxx') probably later this year.
Darryl M R
Member
As a console user who is planning to build a PC I have this misconception that nvidia cards work well with most programs and games than AMD cards. I don't know if I gain this thought from reading comments over the years but is there any truth to this. Because a 5% increase doesn't seem worth it if Nvidia is known for being "better" and more user friendly.
Also I don't ever plan to overclock (it doesn't seem like something useful to me if I just want 1440p 60fps). Wouldn't it make sense for me to stick with Nvidia 980ti?
Also I don't ever plan to overclock (it doesn't seem like something useful to me if I just want 1440p 60fps). Wouldn't it make sense for me to stick with Nvidia 980ti?
anchorman128
Member
Yes, that's true for the most part. I've had AMD cards several times throughout my gaming career, AMD last generation, rocking a 770 now. A few hickups here and there with drivers, but nothing like what some users make it out to be.
With the main selling point of the Fury X seeming to be 4k performance and OC headroom, it seems like you'd be better served with a 980ti. But you should wait till the benchmarks hit to make a decision.
Irobot82
Member
Can anyone tell me what this graph is showing?
It seems like AMD has a new feature to lock in your top FPS in order to save power and draw less watts.
Yeah to me the fury x sounds like a great deal against the 980ti, but it will come down to overclocked performance for me. It'll be interesting to see if a fully overclocked fury x can stay ahead of a fully OCed 980ti.
jfoul
Member
Can anyone tell me what this graph is showing?
Frame cap to save power usage, and prevent the card from going into 1000+ FPS situations.
If you are buying a Gsync monitor stick with a 980 ti. Otherwise it doesn't really matter, get what you want. I have a Nvidia card in my desktop PC and an AMD card in my home theater pc, haven't had any major issues with either.
You would probably need an extra $100 for a non-reference water cooled 980Ti, if you really want a "fully" OCed 980Ti.
That's what I'm waiting for. I'm quite happy with my 970 until then.
If you want 1440p/60fps, you'll want to learn about overclocking man. That's not always going to be easy to achieve with the better settings in the newest games. Thankfully, overclocking is really simple. It's only ever complicated or overwhelming if you're trying to go to extremes to extract every last drop of performance from something.
As for AMD, there's some truth to it, but it can also probably be somewhat exaggerated at times. Between people who say there are never any issues at all and those who say that they're a piece of crap, the truth is in the middle and probably not so frustratingly bad that I'd recommend not getting an AMD card.
.
Darryl M R
Member
Do you believe that some users are exaggerating their experiences? When is the expected benchmarks? Also when it says that it is watercooled does that mean there be a lack of space because of the additional watercooling unit? I'm just so confused about this card. I expected more information to be release when they announced it.
Maybe I just been seeing videos of people going to extremes for overclocking. I just get confused and worried that this would destroy my cards or I would mess up my future computer and I would hope to also use it for work as well as gaming.
DouglasteR
Member
Waiting for actual reviews.
jfoul
Member
Yeah, a closed loop AIO GTX 980ti is around $769 and it's still big, and needs a fan because of the GDDR on board. The Fury X has far superior materials used on the shroud, and looks much more elegant.
SeriuzBiznus
Member
Disappointed with the 390/390x so far. Was hoping for something impressive enough to sway me from the GTX 970 but considering I'm only interested in 1080p gaming right now, I think I'm happy with my decision to go with plan A.
I think I'm actually going to order it right now so I can install it in my PC this weekend. I doubt these 300 series reviews are going to drive any price drops with the 970 and if I order now, I still get the free Batman game and can start enjoying these games I've bought in the Steam sale.
I think I'm actually going to order it right now so I can install it in my PC this weekend. I doubt these 300 series reviews are going to drive any price drops with the 970 and if I order now, I still get the free Batman game and can start enjoying these games I've bought in the Steam sale.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah I was gonna say the same thing.
A water-cooled card is going to have more headroom for overclocking than an air-cooled 980 Ti reference model. If you want a water-cooled 980 Ti to be able to match the $650 reference Fury X, you are going to have to fork out more like $700-800.