AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th

Does anyone find it odd that AMD is limiting the frame rate control to newer cards when RTSS and Radeonpro have been doing it for years on all cards?

Honestly, Radeonpro not being developed anymore still makes be want to sway towards Nvidia. Don't know of any other way to do things like adaptive vsync or half refresh vsync on AMD cards.
 
Van Owen said:
Does anyone find it odd that AMD is limiting the frame rate control to newer cards when RTSS and Radeonpro have been doing it for years on all cards?

Honestly, Radeonpro not being developed anymore still makes be want to sway towards Nvidia. Don't know of any other way to do things like adaptive vsync or half refresh vsync on AMD cards.
Click to expand...

Are they really limiting the frame control to newer hardware? Or they wanted to demonstrated on their new cards first then add it in later for earlier cards?
 
Darryl M R said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think I'm the same. It's in my mind for whatever reason that outside of performance Nvidia cards and support are just "better"

I'm still going to hold off to see some independent tests and benchmarks and General GAF opinion before making a final decision though.
 
tenchir said:
Are they really limiting the frame control to newer hardware? Or they wanted to demonstrated on their new cards first then add it in later for earlier cards?
Click to expand...

They talked about this feature before the 300 series were a thing if I'm remembering right. So maybe it might come to older cards.
 
tenchir said:
Are they really limiting the frame control to newer hardware? Or they wanted to demonstrated on their new cards first then add it in later for earlier cards?
Click to expand...

This is what's on AMD's website.

"Frame rate targeting is offered by select AMD Radeon™ R9 and R7 300 Series graphics and is designed to reduce heat, noise and power consumption by letting users set a target frame rate for their games and applications. Confirm supported technologies with your component or system manufacturer for specific capabilities before purchase."
Click to expand...
 
This is really nice to see on the MSI (390X) version at least. With the memory speed up 20% and VRMs being cooler and a larger PCB hopefully a little bit higher clocks on the core fore more performance?
qhvSYUz.png

FLAguy954 said:
I agree with Hazaro.

As a 290 owner, my next card is going to have HBM no matter what. I'm done with GDDR5.
Click to expand...
Yeah the bummer is nVidia will 1000% milk HBM1 and HBM2 launches to stretch it out so I probably won't upgrade first half of 2015 unless it's a used card
bts_watermelon.gif
 
Raider1874 said:
I think I'm the same. It's in my mind for whatever reason that outside of performance Nvidia cards and support are just "better"

I'm still going to hold off to see some independent tests and benchmarks and General GAF opinion before making a final decision though.
Click to expand...

I game on two systems with cards from both and think it's exaggerated. The main difference is nvidia is faster to release drivers for specific high profile releases but they often run fine regardless. What I noticed in amd favor as a person who is often playing games at a slow pace is that nvidia is sometimes breaking old games with their newer drivers.
 
IMACOMPUTA said:
When the competition is doing it, yeah. You should.
Click to expand...

For me as the consumer, because I am one. It plays 0% of a role in my consideration for buying a card because I'll never have the funds to buy two.

I understand those who spend A TON of money get two high ends cards can get angry and they are very vocal about it.

IMACOMPUTA said:
Well, unfortunately your personal purchasing habits don't change the perception that AMD is under delivering in the driver department.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it still isn't a silly thing to complain about. People shouting from the rooftops, HOW DAY THEY NOT HAVE AS MANY CROSSFIRE PROFILES! Meanwhile the vast majority don't even have dual cards. It is a perception for sure, but it's dumb. AMD drivers are great, Nvidia drivers are great.
 
Irobot82 said:
For me as the consumer, because I am one. It plays 0% of a role in my consideration for buying a card because I'll never have the funds to buy two.
Click to expand...
Well, unfortunately your personal purchasing habits don't change the perception that AMD is under delivering in the driver department.
 
Shai-Tan said:
I game on two systems with cards from both and think it's exaggerated. The main difference is nvidia is faster to release drivers for specific high profile releases but they often run fine regardless. What I noticed in amd favor as a person who is often playing games at a slow pace is that nvidia is sometimes breaking old games with their newer drivers.
Click to expand...
Same here. I buy the one which has the best performance for its price next.
 
tenchir said:
The previews are out for the Fury series, and they pretty much came out at the same time, which mean the reviews should be out soon. I would guess the reviews should be out on Monday when all the news of E3(games, VR, etc...) dies down, I think AMD doesn't want their cards to compete with E3 coverage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fury-x-fiji-preview,29400.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Exposes-Fiji-World-HBM-Enthusiast
Click to expand...

Why would they announce them at E3 then?

I think that they try to create a favorable public opinion before the reviews hit the street which means that reviews are likely to show a somewhat different picture for the new lineup. But that's just a guess, they may actually end up having an overall winner on their hands in the form of Fury X.
 
Question: if I'm gaming at 1080p would Fury X be more than enough for a few years, or should I get a 390/X for now and upgrade to HBM when Gen2 is out?

I would like to be able to play modern games, something my current Radeon 5770 HD can struggle with. orz
 
RurouniZel said:
Question: if I'm gaming at 1080p would Fury X be more than enough for a few years, or should I get a 390/X for now and upgrade to HBM when Gen2 is out?

I would like to be able to play modern games, something my current Radeon 5770 HD can struggle with. orz
Click to expand...

I'm wondering the same thing, but i do have a 270x crossfire setup at least.
 
RurouniZel said:
Question: if I'm gaming at 1080p would Fury X be more than enough for a few years, or should I get a 390/X for now and upgrade to HBM when Gen2 is out?

I would like to be able to play modern games, something my current Radeon 5770 HD can struggle with. orz
Click to expand...
Fury X will be a monster card for 1080p gaming. If all you want is a good card to play modern games with, you don't need go super high end like this, though.

But seriously, next generation GPU's with a die shrink and HBM2 are going to improve massively, so anybody looking to buy a new card around this time should really look at what they have right now and if they can wait or not. I can see how a 5770 user might not be able to wait, though.
 
RurouniZel said:
Question: if I'm gaming at 1080p would Fury X be more than enough for a few years, or should I get a 390/X for now and upgrade to HBM when Gen2 is out?

I would like to be able to play modern games, something my current Radeon 5770 HD can struggle with. orz
Click to expand...

Fury X would be overkill, even Fury would probably be overkill. If you can wait awhile, there's still the Fury Nano. If you can't wait that long, the I guess you could go with 390/X/970/980.
 
RurouniZel said:
Question: if I'm gaming at 1080p would Fury X be more than enough for a few years, or should I get a 390/X for now and upgrade to HBM when Gen2 is out?

I would like to be able to play modern games, something my current Radeon 5770 HD can struggle with. orz
Click to expand...

390x can't even do Witcher 3 at max settings @ 1080p...
 
Seanspeed said:
Fury X will be a monster card for 1080p gaming. If all you want is a good card to play modern games with, you don't need go super high end like this, though.

But seriously, next generation GPU's with a die shrink and HBM2 are going to improve massively, so anybody looking to buy a new card around this time should really look at what they have right now and if they can wait or not. I can see how a 5770 user might not be able to wait, though.
Click to expand...

This is the problem I face, as I have a R9 270 and a 1440p monitor :( I mean, scaled down 1080p looks okay for games like Witcher 3 I guess I'll just have to wait until the die shrink. Kind of tempted to buy a sub $100 R9 270 and crossfire it.
 
Seanspeed said:
Fury X will be a monster card for 1080p gaming. If all you want is a good card to play modern games with, you don't need go super high end like this, though.

But seriously, next generation GPU's with a die shrink and HBM2 are going to improve massively, so anybody looking to buy a new card around this time should really look at what they have right now and if they can wait or not. I can see how a 5770 user might not be able to wait, though.
Click to expand...

tenchir said:
Fury X would be overkill, even Fury would probably be overkill. If you can wait awhile, there's still the Fury Nano. If you can't wait that long, the I guess you could go with 390/X/970/980.
Click to expand...

I guess my dilemma is regarding how I know much much better cards are coming next year but my 5 year old 5770 is on its last legs.

Van Owen said:
390x can't even do Witcher 3 at max settings @ 1080p...
Click to expand...

Yikes. That's not good. :/
 
Van Owen said:
Just saying, a 970 out performs it in Witcher 3 at 1080p, and it's still the best purchase in it's price range. If you're gaming at 1080p, you don't need 8GB of VRAM.
Click to expand...

It depends. 1080p VR might require 6+GB cards. At least if you want to play at decent settings, or at least that's what I've heard.


I'm in a really happy place with all these GPU's. I should be getting my 980 Ti here in a few days( EVGA step-up) and love seeing that these boards have the power to compete.

I'll say in regards to AMD and drivers, there was a brief moment where I considered getting two of their high end cards and playing in Xfire but I've read horror stories about their drivers coming so far behind a big game release. I remember having similar issues with 2 GTX 460's in SLI and can't suggest it to anyone. I've been single card guy since and it's been great.

I'll be looking to make a living room PC next year, so I may pop one of these in that if Nvidia doesn't have a competitive alternative.
 
Irobot82 said:
I always find this argument funny. Let's spend a ton of resources on 1% of our customers.
Click to expand...

IMACOMPUTA said:
When the competition is doing it, yeah. You should.
Click to expand...

Basically IMACOMPUTA answered the exact same way that I was going to. AMD is being compared with what their closest rival is doing. And Nvidia is faster at releasing driver updates, especially for SLI stuff vs AMD's support for Crossfire.

Trust me, I don't run two cards either so the Crossfire thing doesn't affect me but that doesn't mean that AMD gets a pass for being slower than their competitor on most titles for dual card support. As the current underdog they really need to be doing things better than Nvidia, not the same or slightly worse.

As a guy who games on a 1080p HD TV (Sony KDL55W950B) I won't be using high resolutions but I am interested in the absolute horsepower or brute force of these new cards. Basically the card that can get the best performance (and heat and noise do make a difference for me) for the most number of games at 1080p will get my cash within the next few weeks.

I've been happy enough with the Radeon 6970 that I have in my current setup but it is by no means strong enough for The Witcher 3 and it is time to upgrade. The 980Ti is the "safe" choice for that one game but I am also looking down the road to Just Cause 3 and other games and if the Fury X is putting down similar benchmarks but doing it quieter and cooler than the 980Ti for the same money then that's an easy purchase for me.
 
RurouniZel said:
I guess my dilemma is regarding how I know much much better cards are coming next year but my 5 year old 5770 is on its last legs.
Click to expand...
That is a toughie, for sure.

I've got a nice GTX670 I'd be willing to sell for £90 if you're in the UK. Would be a big step up from your card and give you next-gen level quality, while not breaking the budget for a bigger upgrade later on.
 
Krappadizzle said:
I'll say in regards to AMD and drivers, there was a brief moment where I considered getting two of their high end cards and playing in Xfire but I've read horror stories about their drivers coming so far behind a big game release. I remember having similar issues with 2 GTX 460's in SLI and can't suggest it to anyone. I've been single card guy since and it's been great.
Click to expand...

Yeah xfire profiles have been late a lot of the time. I had 6950 xfire (until I replaced it with 970). sli is like that too sometimes but they generally get them within a week or two aside from games which have some problem with dual gpu (obviously sucky when you want to play right away but I'm slow to play games anyway)
 
Seanspeed said:
That is a toughie, for sure.

I've got a nice GTX670 I'd be willing to sell for £90 if you're in the UK. Would be a big step up from your card and give you next-gen level quality, while not breaking the budget for a bigger upgrade later on.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the offer, sadly I'm in the states and I have a Best Buy gift card that's going toward a GPU once I stop angsting over the decision. XD
 
A couple of interesting quotes from the Tomshardware preview:

"AMD says one of the biggest differences between the Fury X and the rest of the Fury line is that its water-cooled card shouldn't throttle under load (a big issue we identified with the Radeon R9 290X when it first launched). Instead, this board should always run at its highest clock rate. The air-cooled cards, by comparison, are expected to scale back as their heat sinks and fans are saturated with thermal energy."

and

"The R9 Nano was a big surprise when AMD revealed it. This card features the same GPU, but an even shorter six-inch-long PCB. The smaller card is accompanied by a much lower 175 watt thermal limit and will throttle under taxing workloads. AMD says that compute performance can be as much as 10 percent lower than Fury X, though gaming performance shouldn't be much different."

The Nano really might be the best overall HBM product if it really will be available at $479, as the rumors have suggested.
 
matmanx1 said:
A couple of interesting quotes from the Tomshardware preview:

"AMD says one of the biggest differences between the Fury X and the rest of the Fury line is that its water-cooled card shouldn't throttle under load (a big issue we identified with the Radeon R9 290X when it first launched). Instead, this board should always run at its highest clock rate. The air-cooled cards, by comparison, are expected to scale back as their heat sinks and fans are saturated with thermal energy."

and

"The R9 Nano was a big surprise when AMD revealed it. This card features the same GPU, but an even shorter six-inch-long PCB. The smaller card is accompanied by a much lower 175 watt thermal limit and will throttle under taxing workloads. AMD says that compute performance can be as much as 10 percent lower than Fury X, though gaming performance shouldn't be much different."

The Nano really might be the best overall HBM product if it really will be available at $479, as the rumors have suggested.
Click to expand...


If Nano gives near Fury X performance in ITX form factor then forget about <500$ price.
 
Van Owen said:
Meant 1080p60.
Click to expand...

Um, no one expects the 390x do 60 fps on the witcher 3. It's beating the 980, which is good for AMD. It will not overclock as well as a 980, but for people who don't OC the 390x is a solid choice. 390/290x/290 are a better value, but 390x is a fine card and you are getting 4gb of extra ram.
 
michaelius said:
If Nano gives near Fury X performance in ITX form factor then forget about <500$ price.
Click to expand...

The extra performance they are getting out of the FuryX must be costly power consumption-wise if they perform similarly. I'm interested to see the FuryX reviews but I'm much more curious about the Nano.
 
ZOONAMI said:
Um, no one expects the 390x do 60 fps on the witcher 3. It's beating the 980, which is good for AMD. It will not overclock as well as a 980, but for people who don't OC the 390x is a solid choice. 390/290x/290 are a better value, but 390x is a fine card and you are getting 4gb of extra ram.
Click to expand...

Plus in most benchmarks the 390X scales better at 4k compared to 980 which can't keep up ( I would assume due to the 4GB VRAM limit).
 
From what I can tell of the benches, maybe the drivers are really not up to snuff with The Witcher 3 or maybe the other way around? I dunno...

I just want Fury X reviews/benchmarks.

Also, I realized that if I get the Fury X, I need to get myself a DP to DVI cable. Curious, can the HDMI be upgraded to 2.0 via firmware or is it hardware?
 
webkid94 said:
This is the problem I face, as I have a R9 270 and a 1440p monitor :( I mean, scaled down 1080p looks okay for games like Witcher 3 I guess I'll just have to wait until the die shrink. Kind of tempted to buy a sub $100 R9 270 and crossfire it.
Click to expand...

Go for it, crossfire has given me a nice improvement. Crysis 3 at very high gives me an avg of 52 fps, which is kinda nice considering the card. Had only one 270 but grabbed a second one for $60 in TigerDirect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AMD announces FSR4, available “only on Radeon RX 9070 series”
News Hardware  2 3 4 5 6
283
26K
Bry0 replied
AMD Radeon 9070XT review thread
News Analysis Review  17 18 19 20 21
1K
52K
SolidQ replied
LTTP: Hellblade 2 (Xbox Series X)
16
140
Kvally replied
LTTP: The Outer Worlds (Xbox Series X)
39
715
Thebonehead replied
Leak: AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT priced at $600
Rumor Hardware  2
50
6K
llien replied
Top Bottom