Support NeoGAF

[Kayant]

It's good to see the 300 series are not straight re-brands with extra memory and they have power consumption improvements and true audio actually thought that was dead. Is the memory stuff from Tonga included with these cards also?

 

[Machspeed007]

https://twitter.com/killyourfm/status/611579128941129728?s=09

 

[Crisium]

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.

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:

There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

Moving on, there's also a Hybrid Water 980Ti: if its cooler is as good as AMD's, should be a faster card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4487144&cm_re=gtx980ti-_-14-487-144-_-Product

But yeah, $120 premium. The Galaxy HOF card images I posted will probably have a similar extra cost if not higher.

But let's see how this does against $650 980 Ti's at max OC. Or even against typical aftermarket 980Ti's that are still under $700. I'm not even convinced the Fury X will out perform them at Max OC. Even a not so expensive aftermarket 980Ti has very high OC performance.

This card is only $30 more. Fury X is estimated to be 50-55% faster than a 290X, right? Let's take a look at the $680 980Ti:

55% faster / 72% OC

57% faster / 71% faster OC

Unfortunately that's all they tested with OC, but even with its "stock OC" it is right around that 55% faster than 290X (Fury X) speed:

60% faster

65% faster

36% faster

58% faster

Source: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/

Who'd spend $650 but not $680? It will be interesting to see how Fury X does max OC against cards like this - because this card OC's well and asks for a reasonable minor premium. Fury X is hybrid water so it should OC faster in a equal playing field, but has less thermal room. It'll be interesting to see who wins the $650 to <$700 battle. Although AMD surely has the noise battle won.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

It's going to be awesome when HBM cards eventually fill out the full lineup in the next year or so.

It will be glorious. Small HBM & 16nm cards, small cards everywhere.

Yeah, HBM is going to make ITX cases the future for gaming rigs. Shame I went for an enormous Corsair Air 540 earlier this year but I do get the benefit of good cooling performance

 

[fedexpeon]

Guys, is there a solid branchmark result yet?
I am either going to buy the 980TI or the Fury.
I am leaning toward Nvidia because they haven't done me wrong for decades.
Any good suggestions since I am buying a new PC with the Win 10 launching next month.

 

[jfoul]

These and the MSI cards have 0db mode.

 

[Machspeed007]

Guys, is there a solid branchmark result yet?
I am either going to buy the 980TI or the Fury.
I am leaning toward Nvidia because they haven't done me wrong for decades.
Any good suggestions since I am buying a new PC with the Win 10 launching next month.

This may be relevant to your question as well: https://twitter.com/killyourfm/status/611579128941129728?s=09

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:


There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

This badboy, if its cooler is as good as AMD's, should be a faster card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4487144&cm_re=gtx980ti-_-14-487-144-_-Product

But yeah, $100+ premium. The Galaxy HOF card images I posted will probably have a similar extra cost.

But let's see how this does against $650 980 Ti's at max OC. Or even against typical aftermarket 980Ti's that are still under $700. I'm not even convinced the Fury X will out perform them at Max OC. Even a not so expensive aftermarket 980Ti has very high OC performance.

This card is only $30 more. Fury X is estimated to be 50-55% faster than a 290X, right?

55% faster / 72% OC

57% faster / 71% faster OC


Unfortunately that's all they tested with OC, but even with its "stock OC" it is right around that 55% faster than 290X (Fury X) speed:

Source: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/

Who'd spend $650 but not $680? It will be interesting to see how Fury X does max OC against cards like this - because this card OC's well and asks for a reasonable minor premium. Fury X is hybrid water so it should OC faster in a equal playing field, but has less thermal room. It'll be interesting to see who wins the $650 to <$700 battle.

You've lost me a bit here. What's $680?

EDIT: Sorry saw your link. I'm sure there will be Fury (not Fury X) aftermarket cards that will improve performance on reference Fury (which will be more or less the same as Fury X) as much as non-reference 980 Tis do to the reference model. And at under $600 as the reference Fury is priced at $550.

And that HOF card is going to cost a lot more than $700.

 

[Crisium]

You've lost me a bit here. What's $680?

And that HOF card is going to cost a lot more than $700.

Sorry, I was jumping around cards.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487142

This is the card benchmarked in my post. OC's like a champ.

 

[DieH@rd]

17 sweet sweet teraflops. And to think that 14nm [16nm really] will bring 2x improvement of performance per watt over 28nm.

If all goes well, next year we will maybe get 13-15 tflop SINGLE CHIP cards [when 16nm get optimized, I'm sure single chips will go up to 17-18].

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Thinking of updating my 6950 to a 380 4gig. Would that be worth the cash you think? Or should I wait and see what the fall brings us?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Sorry, I was jumping around cards.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487142

This is the card benchmarked in my post. OC's like a champ.

That EVGA card is a great product. Damn Newegg is cheap.

Let's wait and see on the OCability of these cards. And we need to factor in the Fury too, which will cost $550 and prob offer similar perf as the Fury X.

 

[DBT85]

Seems people are getting a really decent bump in performance on their 290x cards by using the new drivers and nothing else.

One on OCUK reported 10fps more in Witcher 3.

 

[FLAguy954]

Seems people are getting a really decent bump in performance on their 290x cards by using the new drivers and nothing else.

One on OCUK reported 10fps more in Witcher 3.

Really now? Time to install the new drivers then (290 here).

 

[Van Owen]

I wonder if the 15.15 drivers would fuck up a 7xxx series card. I'm guessing not if they work on 290s.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

FYI,

Here are the graphics setting for those benchmarks AMD posted.

Not gonna lie here, these are some pretty impressive numbers. There are other extenuating circumstances but otherwise I would definitely have considered a Fury X. My HAF 932 case has open spots for radiators so the Fury X WC would have fit in it just fine too. Oh well.

 

[psn]

Why no AF in most games?

 

[DBT85]

Really now? Time to install the new drivers then (290 here).

Apparently so, here's the link of what you need to do to get the new drivers working

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=399956

 

[Irobot82]

Not gonna lie here, these are some pretty impressive numbers. There are other extenuating circumstances but otherwise I would definitely have considered a Fury X. My HAF 932 case has open spots for radiators so the Fury X WC would have fit in it just fine too. Oh well.

It seems weird that half the settings have no AF on. AF uses like next to no resources.

 

[Nachtmaer]

Apparently so, here's the link of what you need to do to get the new drivers working

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=399956

Neat. Gonna give em a try as well.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:


There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

That Galaxy HOF is awesome but it's most likely not going to be less than $799.

The vanilla 980 watercooled HOF was priced at $799, so realistically we're looking at anywhere between $849 and $899 for the 980Ti version.

 

[AmyS]

Hopefully dual Fiji gives AMD an incentive to push developers towards unifying memory pools in DX12. All that power going to waste with a 4GB memory limit would be a shame.

I wonder if nVidia will bother to respond to this. Dual GM200 would be such a power hungry beast.

Titan Z-X ?

 

[jim2point0]

Can someone ELI5 how the FuryX is "water cooled?" Does that require you to have water cooling setup in your system? Or is it some kind of self-contained thing?

*never done watercooling before*

 

[Crisium]

Can someone ELI5 how the FuryX is "water cooled?" Does that require you to have water cooling setup in your system? Or is it some kind of self-contained thing?

*never done watercooling before*

Just mount the 120mm Fan/Radiator to a place where you typically mount a 120mm fan. It's just much thicker than a normal 120mm case fan and has a cord attached to the video card.

 

[Mad Max]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:


There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

Moving on, there's also a Hybrid Water 980Ti: if its cooler is as good as AMD's, should be a faster card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4487144&cm_re=gtx980ti-_-14-487-144-_-Product

But yeah, $120 premium. The Galaxy HOF card images I posted will probably have a similar extra cost if not higher.

But let's see how this does against $650 980 Ti's at max OC. Or even against typical aftermarket 980Ti's that are still under $700. I'm not even convinced the Fury X will out perform them at Max OC. Even a not so expensive aftermarket 980Ti has very high OC performance.



This card is only $30 more. Fury X is estimated to be 50-55% faster than a 290X, right? Let's take a look at the $680 980Ti:

55% faster / 72% OC

57% faster / 71% faster OC


Unfortunately that's all they tested with OC, but even with its "stock OC" it is right around that 55% faster than 290X (Fury X) speed:

60% faster


65% faster


36% faster


58% faster


Source: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/

Who'd spend $650 but not $680? It will be interesting to see how Fury X does max OC against cards like this - because this card OC's well and asks for a reasonable minor premium. Fury X is hybrid water so it should OC faster in a equal playing field, but has less thermal room. It'll be interesting to see who wins the $650 to <$700 battle. Although AMD surely has the noise battle won.

Well as you said an OCed 980ti is a pretty beasty card, but according to amd the fury X is supposed to be faster than the 980ti stock. The reviews that we'll see in a couple of days will probably shed some light on amd's claims of the fury's great (OC) potential.

In either case you can't judge how well a card will OC based on the max input power alone: keeping the gpu cool is only one part of OCing. And in my experience lower temps do not always result in much higher OCs, also depending on the silicon lottery and architecture-specific parameters that users can't control. Most nvidia cards also have very limited voltage control, so for that we'll probably have to flash a modded bios or buy the lightning/ROG/classified etc cards.

Furthermore the gap in power consumption between the 980ti and the fury x is supposed to be relatively small, so I doubt it will really affect overclocking at all. Keeping these cards cool is a challenge either way, but I have a custom WC loop, so I'm just going to remove the provided cooler and install a full cover block :^).

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:


There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

Moving on, there's also a Hybrid Water 980Ti: if its cooler is as good as AMD's, should be a faster card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4487144&cm_re=gtx980ti-_-14-487-144-_-Product

But yeah, $120 premium. The Galaxy HOF card images I posted will probably have a similar extra cost if not higher.

But let's see how this does against $650 980 Ti's at max OC. Or even against typical aftermarket 980Ti's that are still under $700. I'm not even convinced the Fury X will out perform them at Max OC. Even a not so expensive aftermarket 980Ti has very high OC performance.



This card is only $30 more. Fury X is estimated to be 50-55% faster than a 290X, right? Let's take a look at the $680 980Ti:

55% faster / 72% OC

57% faster / 71% faster OC


Unfortunately that's all they tested with OC, but even with its "stock OC" it is right around that 55% faster than 290X (Fury X) speed:

60% faster


65% faster


36% faster


58% faster


Source: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/

Who'd spend $650 but not $680? It will be interesting to see how Fury X does max OC against cards like this - because this card OC's well and asks for a reasonable minor premium. Fury X is hybrid water so it should OC faster in a equal playing field, but has less thermal room. It'll be interesting to see who wins the $650 to <$700 battle. Although AMD surely has the noise battle won.

Tagged. I'm buying that. Holy shit that looks awesome.

 

[FLAguy954]

Apparently so, here's the link of what you need to do to get the new drivers working

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=399956

Just installed them, thanks.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It seems weird that half the settings have no AF on. AF uses like next to no resources.

/shrug

Official benchmarks from the usual sites can't be far off, but there's no reason to assume AMD has something to hide now. My guess is they have been tweaking clocks and drivers for awhile, this is probably representative of launch performance.

 

[grkazan12]

Has anything been said about power consumption for the Fury X? Will it be similar to the 980ti?

 

[RenegadeXV8]

Has anything been said about power consumption for the Fury X? Will it be similar to the 980ti?

Fury X is rated at 275W.

980Ti/Titan X is 250W.

10% higher, but if performance is greater (as AMD's benchmarks currently show), then the consumption is justified. Keep in mind AMD and Nvidia rate TDP differently, so they could both end up using the same amount of power.

What remains to be seen is power consumption when overclocked.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I wonder if nVidia will bother to respond to this. Dual GM200 would be such a power hungry beast.

Dual GM200 has a lower TDP then dual Fiji (250W vs. 275W per GPU core). The real question is if Nvidia cares enough to invest in an AIO WC solution like what Fiji uses. If there's one thing I can criticize about Nvidia, it's the minimal effort they put into their reference cooling solutions, an actual AIO WC solution for a Mobile Suit Titan "ZZ" is more effort than they have traditionally demonstrated in that field.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Has anything been said about power consumption for the Fury X? Will it be similar to the 980ti?

25 watts difference. 275 for Fury X, 250 for 980 Ti.

EDIT: Beaten.

 

[ValfarHL]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go. That being said, this is $649. The top custom 980 Ti are $700+. AMD should win the $650 battle, but those willing to put more money in I think will find that Nvidia still has the performance crown. The question is if you want to drop extra cash, because Fury X has the best reference cooler and doesn't carry a price premium.

I mean, look at this:


There's no reason this won't beat a Fury X, and of course Titan X unless you custom modify the Titan X to water. Nvidia still holds the the top GPU performance crown if you are willing to pay for it.

Moving on, there's also a Hybrid Water 980Ti: if its cooler is as good as AMD's, should be a faster card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4487144&cm_re=gtx980ti-_-14-487-144-_-Product

But yeah, $120 premium. The Galaxy HOF card images I posted will probably have a similar extra cost if not higher.

But let's see how this does against $650 980 Ti's at max OC. Or even against typical aftermarket 980Ti's that are still under $700. I'm not even convinced the Fury X will out perform them at Max OC. Even a not so expensive aftermarket 980Ti has very high OC performance.



This card is only $30 more. Fury X is estimated to be 50-55% faster than a 290X, right? Let's take a look at the $680 980Ti:

55% faster / 72% OC

57% faster / 71% faster OC


Unfortunately that's all they tested with OC, but even with its "stock OC" it is right around that 55% faster than 290X (Fury X) speed:

60% faster


65% faster


36% faster


58% faster


Source: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/

Who'd spend $650 but not $680? It will be interesting to see how Fury X does max OC against cards like this - because this card OC's well and asks for a reasonable minor premium. Fury X is hybrid water so it should OC faster in a equal playing field, but has less thermal room. It'll be interesting to see who wins the $650 to <$700 battle. Although AMD surely has the noise battle won.

Great post!

 

[mkenyon]

I doubt it. I think the best custom 980 Ti's (also water) will OC far more than Fury X. It's a matter of thermals, and the 980Ti uses less power at stock and has more room to go.

This is absolutely false.

You will be completely hamstrung on the NVIDIA cards without a custom BIOS that voids the warranty. Greenlight prevents voltage control at the level that would be required to push the thermal limits.

I say this as someone who's main system has a 780 Ti Kingpin Classified under water with a custom Skyn3t BIOS.

 

[AU Tiger]

Can someone ELI5 how the FuryX is "water cooled?" Does that require you to have water cooling setup in your system? Or is it some kind of self-contained thing?

*never done watercooling before*

I assume it'll be self contained like the EVGA hybrid or R295X2

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/81979-evga-geforce-gtx-980-hybrid-cooler-competition/

 

[General Lee]

Has anything been said about power consumption for the Fury X? Will it be similar to the 980ti?

AMD has stated a 275W typical board power figure. In reality, it's probably going to be somewhat more than what 980 Ti uses. At this point it's a major improvement over the 200 series, and not likely to be a big differentiating factor.

Looks like AMD will have the fastest single GPU of this gen, which is something I don't think they've had since the Ati 9700 era. Hopefully we'll see this trend continue. God knows AMD needs some money thrown their way...

I think Fury and Nano will be very interesting to see too. An air cooled Fury for $549 will put some pressure on Nvidia to respond, especially if it's not that far away from 980 Ti in performance. And if Fury doesn't do that, Nano certainly will. Currently Nvidia has a huge gap between 970 and 980 Ti and the 980 is doing a poor job of filling it at $500. It's losing in a lot of benches to the 290X and that's a $350 card.

 

[Patchy]

So a 390X is $649 AUD. I think that's a pretty decent price for 980 / 980 Ti level performance.

Reviews coming in say it's also quieter then both the 980 and 980 Ti!

I have a 290, think jumping for a 390X is worth it for @k gaming?

 

[x3sphere]

I don't get the OC headroom argument. It's not like all AMD cards have OC'd poorly. 7970 was a beast, 30-35% overclocks were common on that chip.

Hawaii/290X didn't have as much headroom, but it doesn't mean Fiji will be the same. Maybe Fiji will be more like 7970.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

I'm impressed with that Nano card. Would be interested to see what the benches are for it!

Also, kinda OT, but considering MS/Sony will be in the process of engineering the next generation of consoles, it's more than likely that they'll stay partnered with AMD (if they're still around).

We could be potentially looking at the next minimum spec of GPU's in regards to Nano/Nano MK2 with HBM MK2 if they are cool low power cards, which they seem to be.

Exciting stuff!

 

[Abilidebob]

I heard that reviewers are getting a bunch of problems with the 390x and 390, regarding driver issues and such.
Fucking hell AMD, fix that before you release Fury X.

 

[x3sphere]

So a 390X is $649 AUD. I think that's a pretty decent price for 980 / 980 Ti level performance.

Reviews coming in say it's also quieter then both the 980 and 980 Ti!

I have a 290, think jumping for a 390X is worth it for @k gaming?

980 Ti is in different league than both 980 and 390X so not sure why you are grouping them together.

For 4K gaming you want a 980 Ti or the upcoming Fury. Going to the 390X from a 290 would not be a big upgrade at all.

 

[Ophiuchus]

R9 Nano is one beautiful product.I wonder other specs of this card.
I wanted to change my 290X and this is the best time I think.

 

[UnrealEck]

I heard that reviewers are getting a bunch of problems with the 390x and 390, regarding driver issues and such.
Fucking hell AMD, fix that before you release Fury X.

Where or who did you hear it from?

 

[tenchir]

Here's the review for R390/X cards from legionhardware:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,9.html

It's basically on level with a 980.

 

[Crisium]

Looks like AMD will have the fastest single GPU of this gen, which is something I don't think they've had since the Ati 9700 era. Hopefully we'll see this trend continue. God knows AMD needs some money thrown their way...

X1800 and x1900 usually were ahead of 7800 and 7900. Also 7970 max oc beat 680 max oc for most of that gen, so arguably an AMD win for max performance. But you're right that it's rare, but welcome for more competition.

 

[Tallshortman]

390X will do well if they drop the price about $35-50. If it were in a vacuum it would be a good value but unfortunately people remember you could get 4GB 290x for $300 just earlier this month.

The Fury X performance graph looks extremely impressive, really glad they put the settings in there so people couldn't claim "optimized" marketing settings.

So a 390X is $649 AUD. I think that's a pretty decent price for 980 / 980 Ti level performance.

Reviews coming in say it's also quieter then both the 980 and 980 Ti!

I have a 290, think jumping for a 390X is worth it for @k gaming?

Hold out for fury nano or air cooled fury if you want to see a big bump in performance. 390X is slightly tweaked 290x so the gains for you will definitely not be worth it.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Seeing a ton of reviews for the R9 380 2 gig, but like none for the 4 gig version. Anyone managed to spot one yet?

 

[Cerity]

Im trying to figure out who the market for that HOF card is.

People serious enough about overclocking and who would require that type of power circuitry would aready have an epower board or would be unafraid to do other hardware based vmods.

And then they're using a bitspower block for cooling? Did talks breakdown with EK/Koolance/Aquacomputer or something? Bitspower haven't exactly shown to be the best at waterblock design.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Here's the review for R390/X cards from legionhardware:

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_iceq_xsup2_oc_radeon_r9_390xr9_390_r9_380,9.html

It's basically on level with a 980.

The OG 980 needs a price drop so bad. If Nvidia responded accordingly, I would expect 970 to drop slightly to $300 and 980 to drop very steeply to $400. The biggest problem Nvidia has now is the huge hole in their lineup between the OG 980 and the 980 Ti, they really want something to stick in between those two where the Fury Nano and Fury non-X will presumably make their living.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Im trying to figure out who the market for that HOF card is.

Enthusiasts that just don't want the hassle.