Support NeoGAF

[Sleeping Lesson]

What is a logical reason they would keep the voltage locked? They had to know how the card was going to perform. Is there something we don't know? Does the Fury just go to shit at higher voltages?

 

[Martelol]

So if we take into account that:

- The card is sitting at it's absolute minimum voltage right now to reduce it's power draw.

- The card is getting errors when trying to overclock at stock voltage.

- The temps at stock are incredibly low.

This card could unleash all of its Fury when the voltage gets unlocked?

This could also end up being a situation like Hawaii, where the silicon is already pushed pretty close to its limits and there just isn't headroom to go much further, even with overvolting. My guess is that's what we're going to see.

Either AMD made a lot of very poor choices, or the majority of their engineering efforts have been focused on making sure they knock it out of the park with 14/16nm. For AMD's sake, let's hope it's the latter.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

Let's say that's the case, you work at AMD, and the NDA on Fury X is going to be lifted in a month.

How in the holy fuck do you not unlock the voltage before the NDA releases? They have to know the 980 Ti performance and they have to know they can't beat it. Their only possible saving grace is to out overclock it, but they won't let you do that at review time?

I will be shocked if this thing overclocks beyond a 980 Ti when the voltage is unlocked.

But that's the thing! They didn't know! Remember this?

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Let's say that's the case, you work at AMD, and the NDA on Fury X is going to be lifted in a month.

How in the holy fuck do you not unlock the voltage before the NDA releases? They have to know the 980 Ti performance and they have to know they can't beat it. Their only possible saving grace is to out overclock it, but they won't let you do that at review time?

I will be shocked if this thing overclocks beyond a 980 Ti when the voltage is unlocked.

Oh i agree. Totally.

If i was in the market right now for a GPU then you bet your ass i'd be looking at buying a GTX980Ti G1.

It's kinda funny watching AMD. They're always kinda on the right track, but when it comes to crunch time they bottle it completely and make stupid mistakes.

 

[x3sphere]

But that's the thing! They didn't know! Remember this?

Yeah those benches were suspect as hell. There was another image showing the actual settings and they used 0xAF for most of the games. No one runs without AF.

I knew something was up when I saw that.

 

[Martelol]

What is a logical reason they would keep the voltage locked? They had to know how the card was going to perform. Is there something we don't know? Does the Fury just go to shit at higher voltages?

Modifying voltage isn't some standardized thing that's the same on every architecture. It's not uncommon for tools to take a little bit to catch up when architectural changes are made.

 

[Tovarisc]

Disagree, just cause the Fury X benches put it in between the 980 and the 980ti, but the 980 price is $499 ($150 lower Fury X)

Are you high? Releasing a hyped up product that loses to its primary competitor at the exact same price months after the other one came out is "doing rather well?"

So we have FuryX and GTX980Ti with roughly same pricing points with FuryX being tad cheaper with some retailers [yey prices in Finland <.<]. Cards trade blows from game to game when looking at 1440p and especially 4k, kinda stuff for which people are getting cards at this price range. Power consumption difference is negligible while FuryX comes with better cooling solution. AMD talked big about FuryX being for people that love to OC, but for now FuryX isn't delivering thanks to locked voltage which is disappointing.

People who act like FuryX should be priced against 980 and not against 980Ti are on something, those cards just aren't comparable when looking at resolution in which FuryX is supposed to compete.

You can blame AMD for making the 980 relevant again.

Not sure how that card is relevant in current market. For 1440p it's big maybe, for 4k it's joke. Same to get factory OC'd 970 for <=1440p or get <=4k card from 980Ti if you want NV GPU. 980 is just awkward man in the middle in NV lineup.

FuryX is in 4k club with 980Ti, even if people seem to want think it doesn't have performance for it.

Are you remembering time backwards? I thought that was the opposite of how it was.

CF had issues and AMD actually worked on it and shit got rather good. Nvidia didn't put so much effort into SLI. Maybe I remember wrong, just what I remember from way back then.

 

[Abilidebob]

How likely is that they'll release a driver update in a month or so that will solve most of these problems?

 

[Durante]

What is a logical reason they would keep the voltage locked? They had to know how the card was going to perform. Is there something we don't know? Does the Fury just go to shit at higher voltages?

One potential explanation (note that this is just speculation) is that upping the voltage doesn't increase the clock potential significantly, but greatly increases power consumption. So they would rather have the good press about less power consumption than 290x with far better performance (which is a good thing) than slightly higher clocks.

 

[The Llama]

After thinking about it, give this thing a $100 price cut and it'd be very competitive. But as it is, it's a hard sell and hard to recommend. Guess we'll see what happens.

 

[ZOONAMI]

After thinking about it, give this thing a $100 price cut and it'd be very competitive. But as it is, it's a hard sell and hard to recommend. Guess we'll see what happens.

Well, that's what the non x fury is.

 

[Osiris]

CF had issues and AMD actually worked on it and shit got rather good. Nvidia didn't put so much effort into SLI. Maybe I remember wrong, just what I remember from way back then.

You remember wrong.

How likely is that they'll release a driver update in a month or so that will solve most of these problems?

AMD... drivers... In a month... Hmmmm.... *holds back laughter*

 

[GatticusFinch]

But that's the thing! They didn't know! Remember this?

I'd love to think their incompetence is so high they honestly didn't know, and someone at AMD right now is in a meeting going "you showed me the benchmarks! You said it was faster! We look like idiots now!"

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

I'd love to think their incompetence is so high they honestly didn't know, and someone at AMD right now is in a meeting going "you showed me the benchmarks! You said it was faster! We look like idiots now!"

Haha. Unfortunately I doubt that's the case.

 

[cleveridea]

That 12GB of VRAM will always make it the viable option when gaming at higher resolutions (even some today's reviews point this out). By no means is the Titan X an obsolete card.

Yeah people are mistaking current benchmarks as meaning 980 Ti is same as Titan X but cheaper

That isnt true. Titan X has architectural advantages over the 980 Ti but with pretty much most of the existing games, they perform the same.

Whether this is the same 2 years from now is another question. Titan X has more compute & more VRAM. Right now there doesnt seem to be anything that really needs beyond 6GB.

Therefore right now the 980 Ti appears to be the better choice because of similar performance and much lower price.

We cant say that will be the case 1-2 years from now.

That being said, unless someone can trivially afford Titan X(s) I would recommend 980 Ti as the better value. But its not necessarily true that current performance remains the same over time

 

[mkenyon]

One potential explanation (note that this is just speculation) is that upping the voltage doesn't increase the clock potential significantly, but greatly increases power consumption. So they would rather have the good press about less power consumption than 290x with far better performance (which is a good thing) than slightly higher clocks.

I had the exact same thought, was going to post this as my response as well. Total speculation though.

FuryX is in 4k club with 980Ti, even if people seem to want think it doesn't have performance for it.

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion with the data presented.

 

[Seanspeed]

So if we take into account that:

- The card is sitting at it's absolute minimum voltage right now to reduce it's power draw.

- The card is getting errors when trying to overclock at stock voltage.

- The temps at stock are incredibly low.

This card could unleash all of its Fury when the voltage gets unlocked?

By the sounds of it, this card isn't going to be an overclocker even with voltage unlocked. The fact that it has problems overclocking at current voltages is worrying. It wouldn't be if it had super low power draw, but its already higher than 980Ti/TitanX.

 

[The Llama]

Well, that's what the non x fury is.

True, but isn't that going to be a cut-down part with less performance? Or is it going to be exactly the same performance except air cooled? Because if its the latter, fair enough, that's definitely the one to get.

 

[Quotient]

I haven't read through the reviews, but if you are in the market for a GPU, which do you buy - GTX 980 TI or Fury X?

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Yeah people are mistaking current benchmarks as meaning 980 Ti is same as Titan X but cheaper

That isnt true. Titan X has architectural advantages over the 980 Ti but with pretty much most of the existing games, they perform the same.

Whether this is the same 2 years from now is another question. Titan X has more compute & more VRAM. Right now there doesnt seem to be anything that really needs beyond 6GB.

Therefore right now the 980 Ti appears to be the better choice because of similar performance and much lower price.

We cant say that will be the case 1-2 years from now.

Exactly.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

I haven't read through the reviews, but if you are in the market for a GPU, which do you buy - GTX 980 TI or Fury X?

Lol. 980Ti.
Welcome to the thread.

 

[chromatic9]

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested/Grand-Theft-Auto-V

Fury X has some bad frame times in GTA V 2160p and gets well beat at 1440p by the 980ti in this test.

Overall not a bad alternative, just needs some better drivers. At this point I'd plump for a 980ti but the Fury X is a cool product for sure.

 

[Gritesh]

I haven't read through the reviews, but if you are in the market for a GPU, which do you buy - GTX 980 TI or Fury X?

980ti

 

[GatticusFinch]

I haven't read through the reviews, but if you are in the market for a GPU, which do you buy - GTX 980 TI or Fury X?

980 Ti no questions asked, unless the Fury X gets a significant price cut.

 

[adampa1006]

I have been an ATI/AMD fan for a long time, always came to their defense, but this release is almost a joke. I was hyped. I was let down. I will be going Nvidia unless they really come through next year (looks doubtful now).

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I haven't read through the reviews, but if you are in the market for a GPU, which do you buy - GTX 980 TI or Fury X?

Read through the reviews. The recommendations are there.

Spoiler

Many have said the Ti

 

[mkenyon]

I have been an ATI/AMD fan for a long time, always came to their defense, but this release is almost a joke. I was hyped. I was let down. I will be going Nvidia unless they really come through next year (looks doubtful now).

Yeah, I feel like this is the GPU equivalent of the Bulldozer release. I was so hyped for it.

 

[Sleeping Lesson]

I didn't know about the Gigabyte 980 Ti G1 until today, and now it seems that's the one for me. Good try, AMD, you at least got me to hold out this long.

 

[GatticusFinch]

Cards trade blows from game to game when looking at 1440p and especially 4k, kinda stuff for which people are getting cards at this price range.

Except they don't. The Fury X almost universally loses at every single resolution in every single game.

 

[Durante]

Yeah, I feel like this is the GPU equivalent of the Bulldozer release. I was so hyped for it.

I don't think that's completely fair. Fury X has the potential to be a decent competitor with some driver fixes and price adjustments.

Bulldozer was never ever going to be competitive.

 

[Quotient]

Lol. 980Ti.
Welcome to the thread.

980ti

980 Ti no questions asked, unless the Fury X gets a significant price cut.

Read through the reviews. The recommendations are there.

Spoiler

Many have said the Ti

I guess that is a consensus then.

I wonder how the Fury (air-cooled) will do against the 980.

 

[x3sphere]

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested/Grand-Theft-Auto-V

Fury X has some bad frame times in GTA V 2160p and gets well beat at 1440p by the 980ti in this test.

Overall not a bad alternative, just needs some better drivers. At this point I'd plump for a 980ti but the Fury X is a cool product for sure.

That 1440p result is terrible... 33% slower :|

Fury X only really makes sense at 4K, but even then it gets beat by the 980 Ti in most cases. Even if they priced it at $550 it would be in a weird spot, anyone that is gaming at 4K is on the bleeding edge and can surely afford to fork out another $100.

 

[ss_lemonade]

I wonder how the folks over at the geforce forums are taking this in. Last I checked, pretty much everyone posting in the 700/900 series board were saying they were moving over to team amd due to the whole kepler thing (that's all they've been talking about there lately)

 

[dr_rus]

After thinking about it, give this thing a $100 price cut and it'd be very competitive. But as it is, it's a hard sell and hard to recommend. Guess we'll see what happens.

They already had to give it a price cut after 980Ti forced them to. The issue with Fiji is that both the GPU die and the HBM stacks are very expensive. Mostly the latter I'd assume as the die itself isn't that different from GM200.

Well, that's what the non x fury is.

Non X Fury will be quite a lot slower than Fury X I think.

Yeah people are mistaking current benchmarks as meaning 980 Ti is same as Titan X but cheaper

That isnt true. Titan X has architectural advantages over the 980 Ti but with pretty much most of the existing games, they perform the same.

Whether this is the same 2 years from now is another question. Titan X has more compute & more VRAM. Right now there doesnt seem to be anything that really needs beyond 6GB.

Therefore right now the 980 Ti appears to be the better choice because of similar performance and much lower price.

We cant say that will be the case 1-2 years from now.

That being said, unless someone can trivially afford Titan X(s) I would recommend 980 Ti as the better value. But its not necessarily true that current performance remains the same over time

The only "architectural" advantage Titan X has above 980Ti is it's additional 6GB of RAM. Well, that and the price which is bigger as well.

 

[dr_rus]

dp

 

[HeWhoWalks]

The only "architectural" advantage Titan X has above 980Ti is it's additional 6GB of RAM. Well, that and the price which is bigger as well.

Actually, the Titan X has more cores/TMUs as well.

 

[chromatic9]

That 1440p result is terrible... 33% slower :|

Fury X only really makes sense at 4K, but even then it gets beat by the 980 Ti in most cases. Even if they priced it at $550 it would be in a weird spot, anyone that is gaming at 4K is on the bleeding edge and can surely afford to fork out another $100.

I worry how much AMD can drop the price with HMB and the cost of the water cooling. I fear there's not much wiggle room sadly. The 980ti release at $650 surely upset the party here for AMD.

Think AMD should hold the price. I'm sure it will attract buyers for being a nice and interesting product and drivers might see a overall bump.

 

[Seanspeed]

That 1440p result is terrible... 33% slower :|

Fury X only really makes sense at 4K, but even then it gets beat by the 980 Ti in most cases. Even if they priced it at $550 it would be in a weird spot, anyone that is gaming at 4K is on the bleeding edge and can surely afford to fork out another $100.

4k monitors and TV's are getting pretty affordable nowadays, actually.

 

[Abilidebob]

AMD... drivers... In a month... Hmmmm.... *holds back laughter*

Oh welp.
I don't even know why I got excited for AMD.

 

[Tovarisc]

http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/6

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,28.html

I need actually read more about how these sites test frame timing, but I find it curious that TechReport has insane frame timing spikes while in Guru3D's tests frame timing is pretty much flawless.

 

[Crisium]

dp

Titan X is not.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

They already had to give it a price cut after 980Ti forced them to. The issue with Fiji is that both the GPU die and the HBM stacks are very expensive. Mostly the latter I'd assume as the die itself isn't that different from GM200.



Non X Fury will be quite a lot slower than Fury X I think.

.

Based on what, exactly? It's price? Precedent has shown that it should be only 5-10% slower than the top card. Remember, the Fury will be air-cooled, so they'll save money right there on BOM over the Fury X. There will also be non-reference designs for the Fury, could be the one to watch. But how many times have we said that when it comes to AMD...

 

[viveks86]

That 1440p result is terrible... 33% slower :|

Fury X only really makes sense at 4K, but even then it gets beat by the 980 Ti in most cases. Even if they priced it at $550 it would be in a weird spot, anyone that is gaming at 4K is on the bleeding edge and can surely afford to fork out another $100.

No single card currently makes sense at 4K. If you want to play any of the latest graphically intense games at anything above 30 fps, you are going to need an SLI setup. Even then, games like GTA V and Witcher 3 can't maintain 60 fps. Given how much these cards cost, I'm sure you aren't going to settle for 30. So advertising a card to be "ideal" for 4K gaming is actually pretty misleading for both Nvidia and AMD to do. We just aren't there yet.

 

[riflen]

Titan X is not.

I think he meant double post. Either that or something way more vulgar.

 

[jim2point0]

No single card currently makes sense at 4K.

Yup. My TitanX gets its ass kicked at 4K in both The Witcher 3 and (lolol) Batman Arkham Knight. Can barely maintain 30 FPS in those games. And I have to kill hairworks in The Witcher 3 to do it.

But is freaking glorious in Battlefield 4. Seems to hover around 70 FPS in 64 player battles.

 

[Crisium]

I don't think that's completely fair. Fury X has the potential to be a decent competitor with some driver fixes and price adjustments.

Bulldozer was never ever going to be competitive.

Agree. Bulldozer is bad period. Fury X at $550 would be an attractive card by any measure. Its simply overpriced which is so un AMD.

 

[viveks86]

Yup. My TitanX gets its ass kicked at 4K in both The Witcher 3 and (lolol) Batman Arkham Knight. Can barely maintain 30 FPS in those games. And I have to kill hairworks in The Witcher 3 to do it.

But is freaking glorious in Battlefield 4. Seems to hover around 70 FPS in 64 player battles.

Yeah frostbite must be a heck of an engine to be pulling that off. I hope the new crop of a games like NFS, Battlefront, Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect scale just as well.

4k monitors and TV's are getting pretty affordable nowadays, actually.

Yup. 4K TV prices dropped SIGNIFICANTLY this year. So happy with mine.

 

[chaosblade]

Looks pretty grim, but I'm still surprised people are seeing this as anything other than an HBM beta, and it along with Maxwell as being holdovers for a node shrink. Buying a 28nm card today seems like such a waste.

I guess I'm getting my money's worth out of the cheap 760Ti I bought to hold me over.

 

[dr_rus]

Actually, the Titan X has more cores/TMUs as well.

So? That's a purely performance difference and it's clearly not enough to justify paying $350 more for Titan X than 980Ti.

Let me get it straight - Titan X is a halo product and the only real "feature" it has is it's price. That's what halo products are about.

Titan X is not.

Double post.

Based on what, exactly? It's price? Precedent has shown that it should be only 5-10% slower than the top card. Remember, the Fury will be air-cooled, so they'll save money right there on BOM over the Fury X. There will also be non-reference designs for the Fury, could be the one to watch. But how many times have we said that when it comes to AMD...

Based on Fury X being WC and barely touching 980Ti at the same time. I have little doubts that Fury non X will have both lower clocks and less active units than the X.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

Damn, seems to me like there's absolutely no reason to get this over a 980Ti..

Whats the use of slapping an expensive AIO if it overclocks like shite. I rather pay 5% more for a custom 980ti and overclock the hell outta it

If the card isn't a good overclocker, then what purpose does the watercooler serve? Was that needed for the card to even run properly at stock?

ATM the there's really no reason to get the Fury X over the 980ti unless you prefer cooler temps. AMD dropped the ball IMO.

Huge noise reduction is the reason. Noise is a huge factor for a lot of people. Don't tell me you don't care about noise...

I needed a new monitor too and now that I think of it... The package price on a freesync and the fury x is about 250 dollars less than the 980ti and gsync monitor so essentially its quite cheaper... Hmmmm

Excellent point. Not sure why nobody else is picking up on this. It's very, very important.

I couldn't be more disappointed. Nvidia is probably laughing their asses off reading these reviews.

1. 980ti outperforms it, relased before it, has more features than it, and has the general reassurance of better performing Nvidia drivers.
2. Without HDMI 2.0 this is pretty much useless to any one with a 4K television and serious PC gaming ambitions. Congratulations AMD.
3. The cost/performance ratio is just not there and the water cooler model actually inhibits it from a lot of cases.

1. nVidia kicked AMD in the balls with the 980ti..

2.Yeah, for 4K gaming on HDTV, 980ti SLI is where it's at

3. ERRONEOUS! You would have been right 2 years ago, but in the age of Adaptive sync, you must calculate the price of GPU+Monitor, and FreeSync monitors are $150 cheaper, apparently, making the effective price of the FuryX $500. I think this is the big kicker here, as Gritesh pointed out.

I think if they would have had 6 or 8gigs of men, it would have been more of a show stopper IMO.

6-8GB of ram wouldn't help it with 1080P resolutions, which is where it needs the most help. In 4K, which needs lots of RAM, it's already doing well with 4GB.

No single card currently makes sense at 4K. If you want to play any of the latest graphically intense games at anything above 30 fps, you are going to need an SLI setup. Even then, games like GTA V and Witcher 3 can't maintain 60 fps. Given how much these cards cost, I'm sure you aren't going to settle for 30. So advertising a card to be "ideal" for 4K gaming is actually pretty misleading for both Nvidia and AMD to do. We just aren't there yet.

110% correct. Must wait 2 years.