DF are actually more PC-centric than console centric. They've just gotten a bigger reputation for their console performance articles.
AMD Radeon Fury X Series | HBM, Small Form Factor And Water Cooling | June 16th
- Thread starter wachie
- Start date
Here are Anandtech's numbers for Ultra/4k in that game:
Slots in pretty much where you'd expect. Now it's a question of overclockability, performance consistency across games and resolutions and of course price.
jfoul
Member
Radeon R9 Fury X: Cooling plus Ashes of the Singularity. Shows the card powered on, and running a game. Gives you an idea of how quiet the card is also.
Anisotropic filtering does not require VRAM. It could be that NV's cards are more heavily balanced towards TMUs than AMDs, I haven't checked lately.
Anyway, it makes more sense to just wait for independent benchmarks by sites which do a solid technical job rather than try to interpret vendor benchmarks (or forum posts really).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You only live once.
Irobot82
Member
The R9-390 or R9-390x.
jfoul
Member
Pretty much equal to the Titan X's performance on those 2 benchmarks.
so are they similar/cheaper price than 970 with similar performance?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah but the main editor, Richard Leadbetter, is someone that used to be a diehard Sega fan and was the editor of old Sega console magazines iirc. He's not someone who has been building PCs for decades. Some of the writers on WCCFTECH are more experienced with PC hardware, and everyone think that's a bit of a joke site. But our Richard is a better writer, I'll give him that.
opticalmace
Member
Here's a 390 review: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Nitro-Radeon-R9-390-8GB-Review
Basically matches the performance of the 970. In Canada (at least) it's basically the same price as a 970, give or take.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Downside is 970 only has 3.5GB normal speed VRAM. 390 has 8GB and is more viable at higher resolutions.
Irobot82
Member
opticalmace
Member
Yup, it's true. 970 should overclock more though, and uses less power. Kind of a wash, just depends on your priorities.
You sure on this?
Possibly the R9 Nano as it will also be quite efficient.
The full Tonga is to my knowledge 384-bit so it would be 3 or 6GB. Very odd that AMD isn't using it in any product though. Even the unicorn m295x is 256bit.
Source (54 minutes)
Fury X is going to cost $650 supposedly.
Full Tonga is an Apple exclusive.
pettson3816
Member
How does this compare to the 980 ti/titan x?
jfoul
Member
Journey
Banned
Anandtech's
Seems like typical AMD, it opens up better the higher the resolution.
Damn, that 295 X2 is killing it. Can anyone explain what are the benefits of getting a Titan X vs a 295 x2? I know one is a single card vs double, but Titan X is like $400 more expensive, I don't get it.
QuantumZebra
Member
ehhhhhhhhhhh
ashecitism
Member
Yeah, don't look at those kinds of benchmarks for a dual card solution. You want to be looking at frame time data as frame pacing is much less smooth on two GPUs in general.
http://techreport.com/review/26279/amd-radeon-r9-295-x2-graphics-card-reviewed
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-295X2-8GB-Graphics-Card-Review
Take a gander through those benchmarks. Then you also need to realize that there are times when a game won't have any crossfire profiles. This is especially true if you're the type that enjoys jumping into games Day 1.
IMACOMPUTA
Member
Just that. Its a dual gpu. Not everything supports crossfire. And if they do it might not be at launch. It uses a lot of power. Nagging issues here and there.
GamingArena
Member
Titan X with mild OC +80mhz on the Core exact same Ultra settings @ 1440p
Average FPS: 101.30
Max FPS: 155.18
Min FPS: 62.68
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Already a beast right out of the gate. Once AMD gets their drivers in order a few months from now the card should really shine.
Journey
Banned
Thanks, makes sense now.
I wonder if they managed to at least fix the frame pacing issues with Fury X2, although I would imagine that crossfire support would still be a problem.
I wonder if they're going to call their next Fury X "Fury X2". Kind of implies that it's a dual card based on previous generation naming like the 295x2. I dunno...
I think Fury 2X would be better.
opticalmace
Member
Maybe not, link me?
I just checked a random review, only overclocked it 8.5% on the core, could be an outlier though.
Frame pacing has always been worse (and likely always will be) with two GPUs, be it NVIDIA or AMD.
That's different than an "issue" in the sense that you're probably thinking. In that regard, yes, the major issues were dealt with by AMD.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
The dual card might also be called Fury Maxx, which is slightly lame but then they could call next-gen HBM2 Arctic Islands card Fury X2.
GPU-Z not reading the card correctly?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Is that a Knight Rider reference? If so, bravo, good sir!
Yeah, I think so
0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55
Banned
still no word on fury X OC potential?
jfoul
Member
Yeah, I think so
Correct!
longdi
Banned
Doesn't look good, typical of AMD gcn headroom. Which mean an aggressive overclock 980ti will win, and it comes with 6gb vram.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Does the Fury X really run at like 40C on load? Why in the world wouldn't they raise the clocks in that scenario?