Unknown Soldier
Member
Really? Do tell. Because you can OC a 980 Ti and a Titan X. The Fury X on the other hand
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Radeon Fury X review thread
- Thread starter ScepticMatt
- Start date
Really? Do tell. Because you can OC a 980 Ti and a Titan X. The Fury X on the other hand
Refreshment.01
Member
As helpful as always tuxfool many thanks.
Developers should be glad they are moving away from 11 since from what i hear and experience in the games that supported it was a very resource intensive API.
NeOak
Member
Wasn't 10 worse?
And 9 before it. They're merely products of their time. A couple of years ago a thin API like dx12 on PC wouldn't be possible.
NeOak
Member
Glide?
Only worked on 3dfx.
Brad Grenz said:
Brad Grenz has got a point: you started comparing Fury X with overclocked 980 Ti and, when he did the same between Titan X with overclocked 980 Ti, you started making fun of his words because in the comparison one card was overclocked.
Not to mention you also sarcastically spoke about video card religion to justgames7604 while you are the one having fanboy attitude
can't understand if you are childish or simply trolling
Tallshortman
Member
lol unknown soldier is a joke in AMD threads, I'm trying to think of an instance of anything constructive he actually had to say.
Anyways, some guys over at hardware.info claimed they found a way to overclock the memory and got a 20% increase in firestrike score.
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/615...-flag-ship-graphics-card-overclocking-results
Should be interesting if AMD relents and lets us OC the memory one of the tools manages to unlock it.
Anyways, some guys over at hardware.info claimed they found a way to overclock the memory and got a 20% increase in firestrike score.
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/615...-flag-ship-graphics-card-overclocking-results
Should be interesting if AMD relents and lets us OC the memory one of the tools manages to unlock it.
NeOak
Member
I know, but it was low level. So it was possible before
He really should change his steam name to this. lol
This it what baffles me, how in the world a new card doesn't have HDMI 2.0? Its marketed as a 4k card and a lot of people (me one of them) have 4k Tv's instead of a monitor. I guess I'm going team green this time. AMD may lose some sales due that.
mhm. Everything seems to point to the card being supply constrained, they'll empty out inventory. They'll only keep this up for the next 6/7 months and then everybody will be focused on the upcoming new things.
Yeah, I bet AMD never intended it to be a huge seller, I could see it as a trial run for thier new memory architecture. They might not be making a profit on it, perhaps even a loss, is that a thing in this market? Really, with this process node, all things point to hbm2, and the die shrink as the real story.
But I keep thinking, what would a 390x have been like with the same shader count as the fury... Might have been a sweet card.
Yeah, despite the ways people want to deflect it, it's a glaring omission for a GPU purportedly aimed at 4k. I don't really know what they were thinking with both this and the dual-link DVI issue. I can't believe cutting costs by a few cents is worth that.
Here in Austria, it's available in stock already. Non-reference 980tis are harder to get.
NeOak
Member
Holy shit. What the Fuck AMD?
Dictator93
Member
Why are you considering it over the 980Ti?
The 980Ti is the better card, but it seems that some places and countries seriously price gouge on Nvidia cards.
You're not going to get non-ref Fury X cards.
Principles. I know it's silly and not doing me any favours, but I have my reasons for not buying nvidia cards.
Stateside, they both run around 650 on average. 650 was what nVIDIA launched the 980 Ti at, which AMD decided to match upon launching Fury X.
That doesn't include vendor overclocked 980 Ti's, which easily run to 700 (EVGA Classified for example) or potentially above. Most of the other factory OCed versions of 980 Ti fall somewhere in the 650 to 700 range.
Wow, this thread. GPU wars are serious, I guess.
However, if it comes to Fury X vs. 980 Ti, I'd go with the Fury X. Pretty sure you'll find it for a substantially lower price sooner or later and I personally don't really dig how Nvidia is inherently connected with Ubisoft and some of the most terriblly optimized games there are, see Batman.
However, if it comes to Fury X vs. 980 Ti, I'd go with the Fury X. Pretty sure you'll find it for a substantially lower price sooner or later and I personally don't really dig how Nvidia is inherently connected with Ubisoft and some of the most terriblly optimized games there are, see Batman.
Irobot82
Member
Rober Hallock tweeted that "It was a feature they built specifically for the 300 series."
Twitter Conversation
So does that mean they modded the chips and are doing something at a chip level or is this more PR bullshit.
Well that's just bullshit :/ as a 290x owner it'd be awesome to have frame targeting built into CCC.
It means they're limiting features on older cards so you'll buy new ones but then they'll bitch about Nvidia being anticonsumer.
PR bullshit. Confirmed so, in fact.
People have been frame limiting with external tools for a decade, and people have already run even AMD's implementation on 200-series cards with hacked drivers.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Have people flashed 390X BIOS on 290X yet? Of they did that they could use the 300/Fury driver branch instead of the older cards branch.
I did, ran mine at 1050/6000 clocks as well, and I didn't get as good results as the 390X in any review.
My computer specs are worse than most review computers, and even though I got the 390X bios, I can't use the 300 series driver, it wont let me use it, so that's another variable.
But from my 290x to flashed 390x my performance in Tomb Raider at the same preset as Sweclockers was
13.14% higher minimum framerate and 11.24% higher avg framerate.
Where as sweclockers difference between their 290x and proper 390x was
15.79% higher minimum framerate and 19.35% higher avg
I reran a few times without major discrepancy, my testing is far from waterproof, but it would seem like the 390X benefits from more than just bumped up frequencies.
If anybody wanted to know more about the noise coming from the Fury X pump.
PCPER.com did a nice article with sound recording and comparison (uncompressed)
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Retail-AMD-Fury-X-Sound-Testing-Pump-Whine-Investigation
PCPER.com did a nice article with sound recording and comparison (uncompressed)
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Retail-AMD-Fury-X-Sound-Testing-Pump-Whine-Investigation
Crazymoogle
Member
At the bottom they link to a new article describing newer CM parts that apparently eliminate/reduce the issue. Sucks to have a part lottery but good that they're making fast changes.
Yeah lets hope they have it fixed and it stays fixed, it would really benefit the market if AMD would get a little success.
Can you flash a 290 with a 390 bios too?
BriareosGAF
Member
AMD sent us some engineering samples of these so putting it through its paces now. Radiator fits fine into my Fractal Design XL, although I feel the need to get an entire liquid cooling system to complement the radiator. Replacing a Gigabyte GTX 970 small form factor so the difference in size isn't that big a change, really.
Nvidia cards are massively price hiked here in the UK. On top of that, if history repeats itself, the AMD card may fare better long term than the Nvidia counterpart. Seems like AMD cards generally tend to close or switch the gap over time.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The last couple of AMD ranges all ran more or less the same architecture, and all got a big boost at roughly the same time last year. One interpretation is that they got way better support than Nvidia did, another is that they were underperforming at launch and it took them a year or two before we finally got their full potential. In any case, the Fury X has already benefited from this as they share a lot of tech with the previous gens. I guess the memory management side might have room for improvement, a good thing for a 4GB card in this price bracket.
If you could settle for a less powerful system, I might even recommend the 290x since it's still a very good card and way cheaper.
dr_rus
Member
One of the reasons why Kepler cards are falling behind GCN cards in newer games is the lack of DX11+ support in them which is used rather widely in newer PC games because of new consoles. With Maxwell and Fury it's the other way around - Fiji support less features than Maxwell 2 does.
There's also the issue of 4GB of VRAM which *will* limit Fiji's potential going forward.
Basically - I don't think that Kepler vs GCN situation has any implication on how things will be in the future, on different architectures and in other games.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Yep, Catalyst 15.7, released today, adds VSR and FRTC support to all GCN products (R9 300, R9 200, 7900/7800 series).
Anyone heard about the AF performance/quality difference between FuryX vs. Titan? Apparently Titan uses lower quality AF at default setting which gave them a performance advantage over the FuryX in games. Titan had a 5-15% fps hit when you set the AF quality to be comparable to Fury X default setting in BF4. Could explain why the leak charts from AMD had like 0xAF on them?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041709224#post1041709224
edit: It's not going to change the Ultra setting benchmarks since I assume AF is set to the highest for both of them, but I see it affecting high settings.
edit 2: I should have read to the end. Looks like it was driver issue that turned off AF.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041709224#post1041709224
edit: It's not going to change the Ultra setting benchmarks since I assume AF is set to the highest for both of them, but I see it affecting high settings.
edit 2: I should have read to the end. Looks like it was driver issue that turned off AF.