Support NeoGAF

[ScepticMatt]

Benchmark.pl (polish)
http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test.html

Cieszy, że AMD wraca do gry - i to z przytupem. Fury X to pod wieloma względami konstrukcja przełomowa - mała, szybka, cicha, wyposażona w nowe rozwiązania i 4096-bitowy interfejs pamięci. Nie możemy się jednak doczekać tańszych kart z pamięciami HBM (o czym za chwil&#281 - kwota jaką należy wyłożyć za karty klasy Fury X / 980 Ti jest poza zasięgiem statystycznego Kowalskiego.

To jednak nie koniec ofensywy AMD, bo już w połowie lipca czeka nas premiera kolejnej karty z pamięciami HBM – mowa tutaj o modelu Radeon R9 Fury (bez dopisku X), który będzie dostępny w niższej cenie. Zapowiada się zatem kolejny interesujący pojedynek.

Bit-Tech
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/06/24/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

The Fury X is an awesome card in many ways, and we certainly commend AMD for tackling the demands of 4K head-on. the trouble is it lacks that killer feature or performance that many were probably hoping for. Even if it ends up being a bit more than £510, say £540 like the GTX 980 Ti, it gives Nvidia's card a run for its money and does an all-round good job.

We're thus just about satisfied enough to give it an Approved award, with the caveat that it's only really worth considering for 4K gamers. With 4K screens dropping in price all the time, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The card is clearly competitive in this scenario, but even so a pre-overclocked, custom-cooled GTX 980 Ti is, in most instances, still going to be the better option.

Clubic (french)
http://www.clubic.com/carte-graphiq...rticle-771496-1-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-hbm.html

Alors qu'AMD avait fort à faire pour rattraper NVIDIA et ses GeForce GTX 980 Ti, la Radeon R9 Fury X permet de combler ce retard face aux Radeon R9 290X. Mais si AMD comble son handicap, la marque ne parvient pas vraiment à prendre l'avantage sur la GeForce GTX 980 Ti standard, et encore moins sur les GeForce GTX 980 Ti overclockées qui restent en tête du podium. C'est le cas de notre carte Inno3D, la GeForce GTX 980 Ti iChill qui se montre très impressionnante. On ne peut donc s'empêcher d'être déçu car nous attentions plus de cette Fury X.

Computerbase (German)
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/

In Summe stellt AMD mit der Radeon R9 Fury X Nvidia einen Konkurrenten gegenüber, der sich bei der Leistung hinter einer GeForce GTX 980 Ti und selbst einer GeForce GTX Titan X nicht verstecken muss. Der Preis fällt mit 699 Euro dabei niedriger aus als bei der kleineren Grafikkarte mit GM200. Wer in hohen Auflösungen ab 2.560 × 1.440 spielt und sich an 4 GB Grafikkarte ohne Einschränkungen im Hier und Jetzt nicht stört, erhält mit der Radeon R9 Fury X eine sehr schnelle Grafikkarte, die ein gutes Stück Exklusivität versprüht. Das letzte, derzeit noch nicht geklärte Fragezeichen bleibt das Pumpengeräusch.

Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/06/24/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-amd-at-their-best/

Is all of this enough to turn people away from Nvidia? Maybe. Enough to convince people on the fence to give AMD a fresh try? Absolutely. If you’re looking at 1440p or 4K gaming you have to consider this very carefully against Nvidia’s offerings. Look at the entire ecosystem, G-Sync, FreeSync, driver support, software suites, etc. But at this point, I can say confidently that the Fury X represents AMD at their best, and capable once again of leapfrogging the competition and remaining a force to be reckoned with in the GPU space. Note that I said capable. In order to be a complete success, I think Fury X needed to obliterate the 980 Ti in benchmarks. It fell just short. But the upcoming Fury X2 won’t.

More than anything, the Fury X, to me, shows AMD listening to its community and recognizing that raw horsepower isn’t the only consideration anymore. You need good looks, power efficiency, and distinguishing characteristics to get noticed and stay relevant. The Fury X checks all of those boxes.

GameStar (german)
http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/gra...-fury-x/test/radeon_r9_furyx,928,3087409.html

Für Enthusiasten und Technik-Fans stellt die Radeon R9 Fury X somit eine sehr gute Alternative zu Nvidias Geforce GTX 980 Ti dar. Spieler mit einem Full-HD- oder WQHD-Monitor können die hohe Leistung aber kaum ausnutzen und können sich den Kauf des 700 Euro teuren Flaggschiffs sparen. In diesem Fall sollten Sie auf die für Anfang Juli angekündigte Radeon R9 Fury mit etwas beschnittenem Fiji-Pro-Grafikchip warten. Die Fury (ohne X) sollte zum einen das bessere Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis bieten und zudem wird es die Karte auch mit von den Herstellern angepassten (Luft-)Kühlsystemen geben. Gegen Herbst rechnen wir dann noch mit einer stark abgespeckten (und entsprechend stromsparenden) Variante von Fiji, die in der sehr kleinen Radeon R9 Nano zum Einsatz kommt.

Golem (german)
http://www.golem.de/news/radeon-r9-...zwerg-schlaegt-nvidias-titan-1506-114780.html

Ob am Ende die Radeon R9 Fury X oder die Geforce GTX 980 Ti im Preisbereich von 700 bis 800 Euro die bessere Karte ist, hängt von persönlichen Vorlieben ab: Für die Fury X spricht die leise Kühlung, die bei einem Custom-Modell der Ti einen Aufpreis kostet. Rein von der Geschwindigkeit her sehen wir die Radeon leicht vor übertakteten Geforce-Modellen, die aber verfügen über ausgefeiltere Downsampling-Optionen und im Zweifel über mehr Videospeicher.

Guru3D
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review,1.html

Overall we can certainly recommend the Radeon R9 Fury X if it fits your budget. For 649 USD you do receive a product with liquid cooling factory installed already, I mean that right there is 100 bucks by itself and something I can only applaud. There are some small oversights like HDMI 2.0 and the lack of a DVI connector, but 'nuff said about that. If AMD can bring performance up with a few tweaks in the lower resolutions, they will have an extremely competitive card on their hands. It might not be perfect or a competition slaughtering product at release - but it is close enough. We like it very much.

Hardware.fr (french)
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/937-1/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-gpu-fiji-memoire-hbm-test.html

En découvrant les résultats de la Radeon R9 Fury X, il est difficile de ne pas être déçu. Support d'une nouvelle génération de mémoire avec bande passante massive, nouveau monstre de 8.9 milliards de transistors avec record de puissance de calcul, recours au watercooling pour repousser les limites thermiques… Sur le papier, nous ne pouvions qu'espérer une victoire de la R9 Fury X face à la GTX 980 Ti de Nvidia, ou tout du moins un match nul. Mais ce n'est pas aussi simple.

HardOCP
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review

The new AMD Fiji GPU and Fury X video card looks awesome on paper, but has underwhelmed and disappointed us when it comes to real world gameplay. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X feels like a proof of concept for HBM technology.

In terms of gaming performance, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X seems like better competition for the GeForce GTX 980 4GB video card, rather than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. GTX 980 cards are selling for as low at $490 today. This is not a good thing since the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is priced at $649, the same price as the GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

Usually trying to decide between two video cards at the same price point is a wash, with very even and split performance. However, this is not the case this time with the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti. There is a definite pattern that leads to one video card being the best value for the money, and it is GeForce GTX 980 Ti, not the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.

Limited VRAM for a flagship $649 video card, sub-par gaming performance for the price, and limited display support options with no HDMI 2.0 and no DVI port. To be honest, we aren't entirely sure who the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is really built for? The AMD Radeon Fury X is a confusing product, like a technology demo not fully realized, a showcase for HBM only but with no real substance. The AMD Radeon Fury X looks to be a great marketing showcase, but its prowess starts waning when you consider its value to gamers and hardware enthusiasts.

Hardwarecanucks
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../69682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives.html

The R9 Fury X is exactly what AMD needed: a card that directly competes with the best NVIDIA has to offer after nearly two years of playing catch-up. It is fast, surprisingly power efficient, well designed and infinitely easier to live with than the R9 290X. Granted, there were some minor hiccups along the way but every one of them can be easily overlooked in most circumstances. For example, the pump whine is drastically lower when the card is installed into a case, educated case shopping will eliminate any installation problems and overclocking may be improved if AMD allows board partners to feed a bit more voltage into their cores.

In many ways the Fury X and its associated Fiji architecture are well ahead of their time. They point towards what the graphics market will look like in the future rather than what we’re used to right now. Hopefully the newness of the technology behind the R9 Fury X doesn’t hinder its availability because this card has every right to sell like wildfire from day one.

HardwareHeaven
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/content/reviews/graphics-cards/58089/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

Summary: If retailers stick to the £509 price point, or even manage to hit £499 then the Fury X offers a competitive alternative to the GTX 980 Ti. The competition does offer some higher framerates but the Fury X is more than just raw numbers… its a really lovely looking card, in an unheard of form factor for a high end GPU which runs quiet and at the lowest temperatures you will find for a card in its class. A very well balanced product indeed.

HardwareLuxx
http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...gacards/35798-reviewed-amd-r9-fury-x-4gb.html

The Radeon R9 Fury X leaves a mixed impression. The performance is okay, at least the claims were kept at a realistic level. Using a water cooling system isn’t necessarily the worst idea, but it does come with its own issues. The R9 Fury X also seems negatively affected by a noisy pump.

Hardware.info (Dutch)
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6156/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-amds-nieuwe-vlaggenship

De keuze zal dus voornamelijk van persoonlijke voorkeuren afhangen. Vind je het feit dat de kaart lekker klein en koel is dankzij de waterkoeler van belang, of kies je voor HDMI 2.0 bij de GTX 980 Ti? Verwacht je dat je volgende monitor een FreeSync model is, of vind je DirectX 12_1 ondersteuning toch belangrijker? En misschien wel de lastigste en feitelijk niet te beantwoorden vraag: denk je dat toekomstige games juist primair profiteren van sneller of van meer geheugen? Beide claims zijn goed verdedigbaar en ook wij durven/kunnen in die discussie geen kamp kiezen.

Geen duidelijke winnaar dus, maar laten we op z'n minst met z'n allen blij zijn dat er in het high-end GPU-segment ten minste een keuze is!

Hexus.net
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb/

We're heartened to see that Fury X propels AMD back into the high-end consumer GPU race; it can go into some tiny systems that GTX 980 Ti cannot. Real innovation on the memory front and solid performance in games brings it very close to Nvidia's finest right now. Ultimately the premium PC gaming space is now defined by whose ecosystem you prefer - AMD or Nvidia's? FreeSync vs. G-Sync or Catalyst vs. GeForce.

Making a decision between the two heavyweight cards is no easy task, though if it were our money on the table and we had to make a decision, a well-implemented partner GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB would get the nod. Whatever you end up choosing, competition can only be seen as good for the consumer... AMD does manage to provide that with the Fury X.

HotHardware
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test

The Radeon R9 Fury X is going on sale today for $649. At that price, its main competitor is obviously the similarly priced GeForce GTX 980 Ti. Looking back through the numbers, it’s easy to see why AMD is positioning the Fury X where it is. The Fury X and 980 Ti traded victories in a number and tests and the deltas separating the cards were relatively small overall. If you’re an AMD fan, the Fury X represents an viable alternative to the 980 Ti.

IGN
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/24/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

The Fury X is a fantastic GPU, but like a lot of people, we had originally hoped it would smoke the GTX 980 Ti. Sadly, there was no knockout punch this time around. The two cards offer basically the same level of performance, and each has its own unique benefits. The Fury X is a lot quieter, runs cooler, and is much smaller; the Nvidia card is more overclockable and comes in aftermarket designs. There’s also each company’s ecosystem to consider, too. (Mantle, FreeSync, etc. vs. Shadowplay, GameStream, G-Sync, etc.) So flip a coin if you have to, but you can’t go wrong with either card.

MaximumPC
http://www.maximumpc.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-review/

It takes grit to enter the ring against the reigning heavyweight champion, and Fury X managed to land a few solid punches in the early going. As the match progressed, however, 980 Ti proved to have more stamina and legs. This one didn’t come down to a split decision, and there was little in the way of referee controversy; Fury X just wasn’t quite ready for the belt. It’s a product with plenty of guts, but it also some bad habits picked up in the amateur ranks. With some proper training in the form of drivers, Fury X could come back as a force to be reckoned with. The question is whether that will be in a few weeks, months, or possibly it will take so long that 980 Ti and Titan X will be replaced by even more formidable hardware. We’ll be in line for tickets as soon as a rematch is announced, though we still have reservations about Fury’s 4GB glass chin.

Overclock3D
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3co5a-k1s

Against the GTX980Ti it's, if anything, even more impressive. Both at stock the results are seriously close, yet the R9 Fury X costs less. There is almost nothing not to like. If you are hoping this is an overclocking beast voltage options are locked out, you can tweak the 'max clock' and power target but we didnt get anywhere with ours. Seeing as this will be a reference design only we dont think the vendors will get the chance to play with bios tweaks etc so it may well be a card to fit and forget and not one for the tweakers (going by how ours responded).

Usability is a massive leap forward from reference Radeons of old. AMD have finally given up on their attempts to produced a combined GPU/George Foreman Grill and it's all the better for it. Although in our most extreme testing we saw 63°C (still a low amount) in the majority of games it was around, or below, the 50°C mark. Quiet and cool?! Two things that a Radeon hasn't been for a long time. Add that to the surprisingly good looks and we think it's a winning package.

PCGamesHardware (german)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/Radeon-R9-Fury-X-Test-1162693/

AMDs Comeback ins High-End-Segment der Grafikkarten ist gelungen, die Radeon R9 Fury X überzeugt mit hoher Spieleleistung und einem leisen Kühlsystem - faktisch war keine High-End-Grafikkarte (Single-GPU) seit der Geforce 7900 GTX so leise. Allein wer gehofft hat, dass AMDs schnellstes Pferd im Stall mit fliegenden Fahnen an der Geforce GTX 980 Ti oder gar der Titan X vorbei galoppiert, wird enttäuscht. Der von AMD aufgerufene Launch-Preis, 699 Euro inklusive Mehrwertsteuer, scheint dem angemessen.

PCGamer
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-tested-not-quite-a-980-ti-killer/

Until we’ve explored the overclocking potential of the Fury X, our recommendation is to wait on a purchase. Drivers could improve performance, and the air-cooled R9 Fury will also be available at a lower price point. That may make its 4GB of memory more palatable. But from what we’ve seen, the Fury X doesn’t significantly outperform the 980 Ti, and Nvidia’s card offers 2GB more VRAM and better drivers for the same price.

PCper
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested

Is Fury X the homerun that I think many users and enthusiasts were hoping it would be? Does it live up to all of the hype surrounding a months-long leak campaign and dual E3 stage shows? Probably not. But I still believe that AMD has built its best graphics card in several generations and is again competing in the space we need it to.

PCWorld
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2939...ard-review-amds-thoughtful-4k-powerhouse.html

No, the Fury X isn’t Titan-killer that Team Red fans hoped it would be—but it is a GTX 980 Ti equal. This is nothing short of a powerful, thoughtful graphics card that once again puts AMD Radeon on equal footingwith Nvidia’s gaming finest. Being one of the most powerful graphics cards ever created is nothing to sneeze at, especially when AMD wrapped it all up in such a lovingly designed package.

AMD’s Radeon R9 Fury X kicks ass… even if it doesn’t make Nvidia’s high-end offerings obsolete.

Sweclockers (swedish)
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20730-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x

Sammanfattningsvis är det riktigt knivigt när säcken ska knytas ihop runt Radeon R9 Fury X. Modellen är ruskigt snabb och glänser i högre upplösningar, samtidigt som AMD gjort imponerande förbättringar i till exempel energieffektivitet ställt mot föregående generation. Det innebär en på papperet värdig utmanare till Nvidia Maxwell, speciellt eftersom prislappen landar på rätt nivå.

Inlåsningen till högljudd vattenkylare och, av allt av döma, begränsad överklockning är dock två punkter som ger smolk i glädjebägaren. Geforce GTX 980 Ti från tredje part är helt enkelt en lösning som både är tystare och generellt snabbare, utan att för den skull vara enormt mycket elakare mot plånboken.

Genom Radeon R9 Fury X visar AMD med all önskvärd tydlighet att företaget kan designa och producera grafikkretsar för toppsegmentet. Med facit i hand skulle slutresultatet dock ha gynnats av en bättre paketering, något som förhoppningsvis levereras senare under sommaren via lillebror Radeon R9 Fury.

TechPowerUp
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X

AMD's pricing of $650 for the Fury X matches that of GeForce GTX 980 Ti exactly. I'm not fully convinced that Fury X can win at this price level. While the card introduces cool new technology like HBM and watercooling, in a compact form factor, its performance is not high enough to conclusively beat NVIDIA's offerings, especially the factory overclocked models. The low gaming noise is a definite plus, but it is offset by the pump noise, higher idle noise and the fact that custom, slightly more expensive, GTX 980 Ti designs will certainly reach similar noise levels - with air cooling. Just like Titan X, AMD does not allow any custom variants of the Fury X, but NVIDIA's GTX 980 Ti is being customized by all of their board partners, which means individual products can be targeted a more specific needs of a smaller customer segment.

I think a more appropriate price point for the Fury X would be $599, but this raises the question of supply and demand. If we go by the extremely limited amount of samples, and the even shorter time we had to write the review, there's not gonna be many of them, on the other hand we hear of retailers that have stock available today.

Techreport
https://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed

If you've been paying attention over the preceding pages, you pretty much know the story told by our FPS value scatter. The Radeon R9 Fury X is a big advance over the last-gen R9 290X, and it's a close match overall for the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. However, the GeForce generally outperforms the Fury X across our suite of games—by under 10%, or four FPS, on average. That's massive progress from the red team, and it's a shame the Fury X's measurably superior shader array and prodigious memory bandwidth don't have a bigger payoff in today's games.

Assuming AMD can fix the problems we've identified with a driver update, and assuming it really has ironed out the issue with the whiny water pumps, there's much to like about the Fury X. The GPU has the potential to enable truly smooth gaming in 4K. AMD has managed to keep power consumption in check. The card's cooling and physical design are excellent; they've raised the standard for products of this class. Now that I've used the Fury X, I would have a hard time forking over nearly 700 bucks for a card with a standard air cooler. At this price, decent liquid cooling at least ought to be an option.

Tweakers (dutch)
https://tweakers.net/reviews/4090/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-nieuwe-topkaart-voor-hoge-resoluties.html

Dat maakt het voor AMD waarschijnlijk toch lastig om de Fury X te verkopen, want de prijs zal op een euro of zevenhonderd uitkomen. Dat is evenveel als de prijs van de GTX 980 Ti, die iets sneller is, wel een hdmi 2.0-aansluiting heeft en h265-video hardwarematig kan decoderen. Mocht de prijs wat lager uitvallen, dan kan de Fury X wel weer een interessante keuze vormen. De videokaart schurkt wat snelheid betreft namelijk tegen de GTX 980 Ti aan en is, zeker op hogere resoluties, stukken sneller dan de GTX 980 en R9 390X. Is de Fury X je dan toch te duur, dan komt AMD over drie weken met de R9 Fury, zonder X dus, die een iets langzamere Fiji-gpu aan boord heeft, maar ook honderd euro minder gaat kosten.

Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196.html

There, sitting alongside Nvidia’s gaming champion, Radeon R9 Fury X now shares the throne. It’s not faster, it’s not cheaper and it’s certainly not any more elegant. The card is just enough to yield a bit of parity. And for the AMD faithful, that’s enough to warrant a purchase. We have to wonder if the company stopped just short of the gold, though. More speed, a lower price, some sort of game bundle—it could have gone in several directions, really, to convince enthusiasts that Fury X is the better buy.

 

[Paganmoon]

Crosspost from other thread:

OC3D's review just popped up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3co5a-k1s&feature=em-uploademail

Their written review, straight to the BF4 bench, doesn't look good at all tbh. 980 beats it, wth:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/9

BF4/Battlefront (same engine) is what I'll be playing most so...

 

[toastyToast]

If they can't beat Nvidia with a delay like this people aren't gonna care to wait for what they have on offer anymore.

 

[Jaagen]

Stoked for this one, I'd admit. Especially the Fury Nano that's coming later. Interested to see how it stacks up against the 970 series.

 

[CHC]

Think you're a couple minutes late, sorry man

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=169625195#post169625195

But this thread is more beautiful

 

[decoy11]

Quick glances at a few reviews seems to peg the Fury X as a flop

 

[LilJoka]

980Ti beats it pretty clearly and with less TDP. GTX 980 is close most of the time.

So what is this HBM all about, are we really memory bandwidth bottlenecked? Because i didnt seem to think so. The only advantage i can see is that less Memory maybe required since it doesnt need to cache as much.

 

[taimoorh]

Tom's Hardware

There, sitting alongside Nvidia’s gaming champion, Radeon R9 Fury X now shares the throne. It’s not faster, it’s not cheaper and it’s certainly not any more elegant. The card is just enough to yield a bit of parity. And for the AMD faithful, that’s enough to warrant a purchase. We have to wonder if the company stopped just short of the gold, though. More speed, a lower price, some sort of game bundle—it could have gone in several directions, really, to convince enthusiasts that Fury X is the better buy.


Damnit AMD every time I want to believe in you.....

 

[Seanspeed]

So not an overclocker, then? That's quite surprising.

I cant help but feel that while this is still a pretty awesome package that's cheaper than an aftermarket 980Ti, they could have really stolen a march if they went with $599.

 

[cirrhosis]

Brutal reviews so far. Like most people I thought this had a lot of promise. AMD's Bulldozer 2.0?

I'll wait for some more OC benches but leaning towards a 980 TI now

 

[Seanspeed]

Quick glances at a few reviews seems to peg the Fury X as a flop

Not the ones I'm reading. Unless anything short of being a TitanX-killer means it's a flop....

 

[derFeef]

Quick glances at a few reviews seems to peg the Fury X as a flop

Brutal reviews so far. Like most people I thought this had a lot of promise. AMD's Bulldozer 2.0?

I'll wait for some more OC benches but leaning towards a 980 TI now

Huh.
Seems like a good product, just not a "Titan Killer".

 

[joshcryer]

Nice thread ScepticMatt! Will check back later. Seems a wash but we'll see how things pan out over time. HBM is here though. If AMD gets credit for anything they helped develop and introduce it...

 

[metareferential]

It's still a great card, and it's going to be cheaper if you're going for a variable refresh rate setup (if you're upgrading it's stupid not to).

 

[cirrhosis]

Huh.
Seems like a good product, just not a "Titan Killer".

True. I had high hopes for it being that. Just my heightened expectations after all.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Sitting between 980 and 980Ti when 980 is £100 cheaper and Ti is only £50 more expensive is dissappointing, that means the Fury Pro is aiming at 970 level and will probably be more expensive.

I've been an AMD guy since 3xxx series and even I am considering going green next time. Nvidia has to be rubbing its hands together at this.

 

[1st Course]

I see no CF reviews, The card don't support CF?

 

[derFeef]

I see no CF reviews, The card don't support CF?

There are (german)
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/...abschnitt_amd_crossfire__fury_x_im_doppelpack

 

[tbd]

Against the GTX980Ti it's, if anything, even more impressive.

For 649 USD you do receive a product with liquid cooling factory installed already, I mean that right there is 100 bucks by itself and something I can only applaud.

Sounds like an amazing card.

Nothing will ever stop people from throwing money at Nvidia, even after that Batman fiasco, though.

 

[Jaagen]

Not the ones I'm reading. Unless anything short of being a TitanX-killer means it's a flop....

It seems to be about the same level as the 980Ti, but with water cooling instead of air. Not a bad deal to be honest.

 

[Lucius86]

Sitting between 980 and 980Ti when 980 is £100 cheaper and Ti is only £50 more expensive is dissappointing, that means the Fury Pro is aiming at 970 level and will probably be more expensive.

I've been an AMD guy since 3xxx series and even I am considering going green next time. Nvidia has to be rubbing its hands together at this.

Same, I waited but I'm seriously considering the 980Ti now for my 4K gaming pleasure.

Either that or wait til Pascal. Can my 7950 last until then?

 

[decoy11]

Not the ones I'm reading. Unless anything short of being a TitanX-killer means it's a flop....

Huh.
Seems like a good product, just not a "Titan Killer".

The reviews I'm reading are recommending the GTX 980ti as the better card to buy. It is a flop to me if it didn't edge out against the 980ti

 

[LilJoka]

Sounds like an amazing card.

Nothing will ever stop people from throwing money at Nvidia, even after that Batman fiasco, though.

Thing is, if the 980Ti is already quiet, and runs cool enough, whats the point in the AIO liquid cooler if at the end of the day the performance overall is worse.

 

[Qassim]

So not an overclocker, then? That's quite surprising.

I'm sure they made a point of it being a great overclocker on stage, or was that the R9 Nano?

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

It seems to be about the same level as the 980Ti, but with water cooling instead of air. Not a bad deal to be honest.

Not really when it uses a cheap coolermaster pump and rad that are sub £50, it only has 4GB VRAM compared to 6GB of the Ti.

I'd rather have more VRAM and more OC headroom, the 980Ti can boost up to 1400MHz, than a small quiet card with limited OC potential.

 

[Seanspeed]

It seems to be about the same level as the 980Ti, but with water cooling instead of air. Not a bad deal to be honest.

Right, so long as you're playing at 1440p or above, at least. Clearly bested by the 980Ti at 1080p.

A more concerning issue is the lack of overclocking ability. Seems right now it's limited to about 1125Mhz, but Guru3D feels that with better tools, they could get up to 1250Mhz, which still probably wouldn't match the gains you can get with the 980Ti.

So a cool package with a reasonable price compared to the competition, but maybe not the card to get if you're looking for outright maximum performance, best of the best.

 

[Paganmoon]

Not the ones I'm reading. Unless anything short of being a TitanX-killer means it's a flop....

Don't know man, doesn't come close to the Titan X/980 Ti, in many games, doesn't beat it in any, does not overclock that well.

Considering the hype beforehand about the stock performance, and AMD's calling it overclock-friendly, it does disappoint a lot.

Edit: Re: overclocking, it was already sort of hinted that it wouldn't be that overclocking friendly, with the Nano being 2x perf/watt and the Fury X being 1.5X perf/watt, hinting at quite a bit of "bleed" at higher power usage for the Fiji

 

[DSN2K]

AMD's Bulldozer 2.0?

bit harsh that statement, card is far from shit, what bulldozer was period.

 

[Seanspeed]

Don't know man, doesn't come close to the Titan X/980 Ti, in many games, doesn't beat it in any, does not overclock that well.

Considering the hype beforehand about the stock performance, and AMD's calling it overclock-friendly, it does disappoint a lot.

It still performs very well at 1440p+, quite close to 980Ti on average, and with a cheaper price than an aftermarket 980Ti(which is what most 980Ti buyers will go for).

I don't think that's a 'flop'. Just not an Nvidia-killer.

 

[Paganmoon]

It still performs very well at 1440p+, quite close to 980Ti on average, and with a cheaper price than an aftermarket 980Ti(which is what most 980Ti buyers will go for).

I don't think that's a 'flop'. Just not an Nvidia-killer.

Sure, I agree, it's not a flop, but it is still quite disappointing. And AMD sort of need an "Nvidia-killer" card, or they're going to keep loosing market and mindshare.

 

[tuxfool]

Brutal reviews so far. Like most people I thought this had a lot of promise. AMD's Bulldozer 2.0?

In what world is a competitive card considered equivalent to Bulldozer?

Also I'm not sure that you understand the word "brutal".

 

[Shai-Tan]

I don't think I would take it over a 980ti at the same price - I think very few people would and I don't have a bias towards one or the other gpu manufacturer.

 

[1st Course]

I expected better performance at higher resolutions considering HBM and all that. The card has much higher bandwidth than 980 Ti yet they are neck and neck at 4k/1440p.

 

[Crisium]

So it can match a 980 Ti at 2160, but at 1440 it cannot and at 1080 it falls further behind. I get why they stressed 4K gaming results.

I hope they can improve performance with drivers. It seems on paper that it should have a bigger lead over the 290X.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

It still performs very well at 1440p+, quite close to 980Ti on average, and with a cheaper price than an aftermarket 980Ti(which is what most 980Ti buyers will go for).

I don't think that's a 'flop'. Just not an Nvidia-killer.

The problem is it's not significantly faster than the 980, you could get a non reference 980 for under £400 (sorry not sure of USD) in the UK which is a good £100-150 cheaper depending on your vender preference. That could get you an i7 instead of i5, double the ram or bigger SSD if you were building a new PC.

 

[Seanspeed]

Sure, I agree, it's not a flop, but it is still quite disappointing. And AMD sort of need an "Nvidia-killer" card, or they're going to keep loosing market and mindshare.

That's why I think the impressions would be better if it was $599.

The problem is it's not significantly faster than the 980, you could get a non reference 980 for under £400 (sorry not sure of USD) in the UK which is a good £100-150 cheaper depending on your vender preference.

At 1440p, it is comparable to the 980Ti.

I suppose some will get this to play at 1080p, but it's really built for higher res gaming.

 

[Jaagen]

Not really when it uses a cheap coolermaster pump and rad that are sub £50, it only has 4GB VRAM compared to 6GB of the Ti.

I'd rather have more VRAM and more OC headroom, the 980Ti can boost up to 1400MHz, than a small quiet card with limited OC potential.

Even so, you've got to admit that it's good to see the news standard beeing pushed out. It can only gett better from here and it wouldn't surprise me it the 990Ti(or whatever it's called) will feature water cooling.

 

[Wildesy]

It’s not faster, it’s not cheaper and it’s certainly not any more elegant

Headshot

 

[derFeef]

People don't buy a Titan for 1080p - neither will they buy a Fury for 1080p
And this could improve with drivers anyway.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Finally, the last of the 28nm generation. You have overstayed your welcome.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

I can see why some reviews state that drivers need some tuning. In some games it easily matches or outright beats the 980Ti at 1440p and 4K, but in others it's barely faster than a 290X or 980.

 

[DouglasteR]

Was expecting something far greater.

 

[Lovely Salsa]

Ouch

It should be priced at 550. I doubt it will sell much at 649

 

[matmanx1]

Most of the reviews are positive. No, it isn't a 980Ti killer in most performance tests but it is very close and does have some unique upside with the water cooling and small size.

It looks like Amazon has started listed them but they are all showing "not in stock" and I can't find them on Newegg at all. I think the worse problem for AMD might be the yields and the supply!

 

[metareferential]

People don't buy a Titan for 1080p - neither will they buy a Fury for 1080p
And this could improve with drivers anyway.

Why not?

Resolution is not the only parameter here; image quality comes at great costs, and there are things like 3D, higher fps (144hz) and VR.

 

[Ionic]

Man, I'm putting an irresponsible amount of faith in AMD here. Tune it up in drivers and unlock the thing so we can see how it truly overclocks.

 

[DSN2K]

I can see why some reviews state that drivers need some tuning. In some games it easily matches or outright beats the 980Ti at 1440p and 4K, but in others it's barely faster than a 290X or 980.

this again sums up the problems with backing AMD cards. Their driver support is still weak.

 

[tuxfool]

I can see why some reviews state that drivers need some tuning. In some games it easily matches or outright beats the 980Ti at 1440p and 4K, but in others it's barely faster than a 290X or 980.

While that may be true, this card has been around in some form for quite a while. One would have thought that they would already be on top of that.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

At 1440p, it is comparable to the 980Ti.

I suppose some will get this to play at 1080p, but it's really built for higher res gaming.

At 1440p it is 10-15% slower than the Ti, same again for 4K. Most people would prefer for more VRAM and higher OC/Boost potential at 4K.

At 1080p even if I was die hard AMD I would consider the 980.

 

[Lucius86]

Decided against a purchase. I can't help but think I may regret buying one in just a year. These cards have to last 3-4 years for me, and at 4K I don't think the numbers are high enough to justify such an expense when there is a pretty big jump potentially coming next year with the new 14nm architectures.

My 7950 can run Witcher 3 @ 1440P with details at High for now ~ 30FPS.

I was clearly expecting too much at 4K resolution this time around.