AMD Fury X And Fiji Preview

[Vlad Rose]

the Fury X doesn't employ a fan on its dual-slot form factor....yadda yadda yadda.... Without that traditional blower, the company was able to design a fully enclosed, sleek-looking shroud.

so what about the other parts of the card that get hot? with this should can we expect the power lanes to melt or spontaneously combust the shroud due to all the excess heat? will the pcb warp or bend? what about all the vrms and mofsets? doesn't the ddr5 get pretty hot? i imagine there's alot more that needs to be kept cool than just the gpu considering the 200+ watts being pumped into these things?
or are they just going to print a hasbro logo on them and we can have our cake cooked and eat it?

What's really funny is that everyone talk about how hot the AMD cards are, but yet Nvidia's Fermi were famously known for cooking eggs.... lol

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nvidia%20cook%20egg

Even then, they worked just as well.

Post the video so we can all have a laugh at how bad your memory is please, the egg didn't cook because the white remained runny and clear which is a sign rawness in case you didn't know.

It was meant more as a joke since there were quite a few posts claiming that the AMD card was so hot it'd melt and that Nvidia had been through similar themselves not that long ago. But yeah, I do remember it didn't actually cook the egg, but it made for interesting conversation at the time on every news site.

 

[Mousemonkey]

At these resolutions it's all about the the number of Stream Processors and size of VRAM and that's why cards like the Titan X will perform better at 4k and especially at 8k; 4GB is incredibly lackluster for what this card is trying to be. Also, with Pascal around the corner it's hard to get excited about a small step up like this.

Still, these are impressive cards from AMD and as always the price/performance is incredibly high.

The performance has yet to be ascertained but fingers crossed for good things.

Based on what AMD gave us I am going to estimate an average of 25-30% across all games with some being double the performance (very few) and some being 20% or less compared to a current high end R9 290X, not a based model.

I know the majority are interested in the gaming performance but I'm more interested in how well they can fold and how hot they get and how much power they use, not forgetting the all important driver stability elephant in the room question of course.

Fury X will be water so it will probably be running in the 5-60c range, folding might push it to 70c.

As for folding performance that is pretty much tied into the increase in FLOPS so possibly 40-50% better folding performance.

I am going to guess based on TDP though that we will see probably similar to a R9 290X is not maybe 15-20% more.

We will have to wait and see I guess. Damn review embargos....

I for one don't and won't go for the flagship anymore, it's the rest of the range that I'm interested in. At the moment I'm still running the 7790 that several "AMD supporters" suggested that I RMA and it has been steady as a rock on any driver since 14.2 (IIRC) so whilst I may invest my hard earned in another AMD in the future it won't be a flagship.

 

[troger5troger5]

Does anyone actually have a 4k 60Hz display without DP1,2? So why the fuss about HDMI 2.0 ...

Yes, I do. This is a terrible joke from AMD. I'm glad I didn´t wait and got a Gtx 970 months ago.

Good day, yea, the issue is bandwidth. hdmi 2.0 gives you enough to run your display at 60fps. The lower bandwidth ports are only limited to 30 fps. Does this all mean that the other cards based on this that come out will have the same limitation or is it just with these ref cards? thanks

 

[Doug Lord]

No HDMI 2.0 no sale. 4k TV is the only way to game. How will they sell the quantum HTPC without this?

 

[logainofhades]

4k gaming is overrated.

 

[alextheblue]

The air-cooled cards, by comparison, are expected to scale back as their heat sinks and fans are saturated with thermal energy.

I like your style. It's called overheating.

No it's called throttling and it's commonplace in graphics these days. They push the GPUs as hard as possible with boost clocks and in certain circumstances they have to scale back a bit due to heat or power limits. Even Maxwell can throttle, look it up. Not just in Furmark, either (though it does throttle MORE in furmark by a lot).

If you absolutely don't want throttling (at least in real-world gaming), you can either tinker with it yourself or just get something that's overbuilt like the Fury X instead of its aircooled brethren.

 

[Mousemonkey]

4k gaming is overrated.

But 4k gaming is the future, are you saying the future is overrated?

I shall now go and lie down in a darkened room and contemplate my disappointment.

 

[logainofhades]

Until 4k gaming is as cheap as 1080p gaming, I am not interested. The cost to get a 4k gaming rig, plus the monitors as I run dual screens, would probably cover the body work to my Bronco. :lol:

 

[Gurg]

Just read the Forbes AMD Fury X Benchmarks. These numbers come from the AMD Press package. It beats the 980Ti in each of the dozen games, and just barely in the one synthetic, 3DMark Firestrike Ultra (4K). That card does look like its a winner. But these are AMD numbers. The embargo on press created benchmarks is still on until the 24th. And they only benchmarked 4K numbers.

Is there a reason for that? I guess we should know in a week.

I will relink this to save you from scrolling back up...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/06/18/amd-radeon-fury-x-benchmarks-full-specs-new-fiji-graphics-card-beats-nvidias-980-ti/

If these are from a CLC FuryX vs the reference cooled 980Ti then the results are hogwash. The EVGA 980Ti with a CLC attached has a 14% higher clock than their 980Ti reference card, while aircooled non-reference MSI has an 18.8% and the GIGABYTE GV-N98TG1 GAMING has a 20% clock increase over the reference card. A 14-20% 980 Ti clock increase would most likely evaporate any FuryX lead and turns most cases to loses. It will be interesting to see apples to apples FuryX vs aftermarket cooled 980Ti independent benchmarks next week.

 

[somebodyspecial]

With the new HBM design , AMD can make 4 GPU on one card guys ... If they do this , Nvidia will be in trouble ! they cant make a 4 GPU single card at all no space !

If Nvidia can build a 1200w gpu on a card and cool it amd will be in real trouble...LOL. They'll sell 1 of them and AMD will massively lose market share to this $10000 monster card...ROFL.

BTW, NV has HBM2 with pascal, so what's your point? You act as though HBM is AMD only forever, while reality is NV has it in a few more quarters when it's actually (maybe) needed by a gpu that can outstrip today's bandwidth (this gen doesn't have a bandwidth problem, but a die shrink to 16nm/14nm could cause it). By the time the fantasy ships from AMD, NV has one too? OK...Let me know when that 4 gpu chip card (from either side) can do ~300w. Get back to me at ~7nm or less...LOL. Not trying to be mathematically accurate here, but you get the point.

lol as you wish fanboy ... AMD has HBM ready , and can release a 4 GPU card at any moment.

I dont care what Nvidia are planning to do . I expect 3 or 4 GPU single card from AMD very soon ... and it will beat Nvidia very hard this round . and if AMD does not do it , it will be a huge mistake. they have the Advantage of the Area on the board , and they must use that Advantage in a flagship !

Do it AMD !!! we want 4 GPU single card !!!

So you're telling me AMD is going to put 4x 550-580mm^2 dies onto a single card, and all the memory that goes with it and cool it with magic while we run this in our PC? You realize the wattage that card would need? How costly it would be? HBM means nothing if you're not bandwidth constrained. PERIOD. IF it was we'd see fury (even in AMD's benchmarks) BLOWING OUT 980ti/titan and it doesn't. Blowing out to me is say Intel 4790 vs. AMD whatever...IF all you get is <10% wins HBM got you nothing correct? It's the 550mm-580mm^2 GPU that got that perf! IE, comparable to Nvidia's gpu size. GM200-310-A1 variant is 601mm^2 on 28nm. All AMD has done here is catch up and lower their bad power (watts) using 20nm to get to 550-580mm^2 without totally blowing up costs, while HBM costs is a question mark that won't be answered until we have a quarter of sales behind them.

No fanboy, I said NEITHER side can do 4 chips on a card without issues. NEITHER side. Get it? Just reality of physics etc. Neither side is in the position to be able to make a toy to prove a point but not make money on it. I'm sure they'll muster a dual card (both sides can always do this, depending on clocks etc) but a quad gpu card is a joke for both in these PC's. I don't want AMD broke, so even chasing your pipe dream is ridiculously financially stupid, even worse than chasing consoles and apus. Both of those stole from core CPU/GPU/DRIVER work and has severely cost AMD across the board. I don't believe HBM this soon was wise either. It wasn't needed. They should have waited for the next round with NV to cheapen it when it MIGHT be needed. NV has 72% share and would massively drive pricing down on HBM if AMD had waited. 1st to market with something that is useless with current gpu power just costs profits that are BADLY needed by AMD (see 7B losses in the last 15yrs, 6B+ of that in the last 12yrs).

 

[Rick Couch]

will the vram stack in crossfire with the new cards or still a no go?

 

[BadNight]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with early benchmarks. AMD is perfectly capable of surpassing Nvidia cards. They're both are capable of a lot better technology. If anything, their business plan works great considering the only thing they need to do is release a card 10% better, and everyone just eats it up. This has been happening the whole time. This back and forth is intended.

 

[uglyduckling81]

I don't know why people are so obsessed with early benchmarks. AMD is perfectly capable of surpassing Nvidia cards. They're both are capable of a lot better technology. If anything, their business plan works great considering the only thing they need to do is release a card 10% better, and everyone just eats it up. This has been happening the whole time. This back and forth is intended.

Nvidia have the market and it includes a whole lot of fan boys.
They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that if AMD disappears innovation slows to a crawl and prices sky rocket.
I can't understand anyone rooting for Nvidia the way they do.
Everyone should be celebrating every good step AMD makes and biasedly buying their products to try and even things out.
Nothing better for consumers than fair and healthy competition.
A GTX 980 wouldn't of cost so much if we had a more balanced market. It would of been priced according to it's performance. Instead Nvidia is able to bank on fan boys to buy up inflated prices.

 

[ern88]

Nvidia cards are superior to AMD cards IMO. And I am not a Nvidia Fanboy. SInce I have owned ATI/AMD cards since the X800 cards came out. And I am currently running a HD7950. I say this because their cards are fast and power efficent. Something AMD lacks. They maybe a bit more expensive, but you get what you pay for. I hope that the Fury is a home run. We need healthy competition in this market.

 

[Blueberries]

You guys are missing a key point here, AMD is releasing a higher performance/watt card with a higher-than ever TDP and scales the clock-rate back as necessary. Nvidia is releasing a higher performance/watt card with a lower-than ever TDP, and we'll probably see passively cooled 1080p solutions and single-GPU 4k solutions with Pascal (that don't come with a factory radiator, and will likely have more memory than these cards).

 

[DasHotShot]

4k gaming is overrated.

But 4k gaming is the future, are you saying the future is overrated?

I shall now go and lie down in a darkened room and contemplate my disappointment.

Doubtful that it is "the future". Firstly there are several other screen technologies around already which surpass 4k or give an identical experience (1440p with AA).

Secondly 4k is REALLY inefficient. I mean it you need to render 4 times the amount of pixels basically over 1080p for a very very small gain in almost all titles of perceivable resolution.

Like Hades said...until 4k prices normalize and the release of Oculus for example I would hold off and see.

For now I can see nothingbetter in terms of visuals and quality over 1440p, AA on displayed via Gsync...Just pure heaven

 

[Blueberries]

4k gaming is overrated.

But 4k gaming is the future, are you saying the future is overrated?

I shall now go and lie down in a darkened room and contemplate my disappointment.

Doubtful that it is "the future". Firstly there are several other screen technologies around already which surpass 4k or give an identical experience (1440p with AA).

Secondly 4k is REALLY inefficient. I mean it you need to render 4 times the amount of pixels basically over 1080p for a very very small gain in almost all titles of perceivable resolution.

Like Hades said...until 4k prices normalize and the release of Oculus for example I would hold off and see.

For now I can see nothingbetter in terms of visuals and quality over 1440p, AA on displayed via Gsync...Just pure heaven

I don't know what you're talking about. AA blurs the image and makes it look worse.

4k looks phenomenally better both in television and in rendering, it will be affordable next year, and in everybody's Blu-Ray player in 2017.

 

[quilciri]

4k looks phenomenally better both in television and in rendering, it will be affordable next year, and in everybody's Blu-Ray player in 2017.

At which point this Radeon Fury series will matter about as much as the GTX 700 series does now.

 

[Vlad Rose]

4k gaming is overrated.

But 4k gaming is the future, are you saying the future is overrated?

I shall now go and lie down in a darkened room and contemplate my disappointment.

Doubtful that it is "the future". Firstly there are several other screen technologies around already which surpass 4k or give an identical experience (1440p with AA).

Secondly 4k is REALLY inefficient. I mean it you need to render 4 times the amount of pixels basically over 1080p for a very very small gain in almost all titles of perceivable resolution.

Like Hades said...until 4k prices normalize and the release of Oculus for example I would hold off and see.

For now I can see nothingbetter in terms of visuals and quality over 1440p, AA on displayed via Gsync...Just pure heaven

I don't know what you're talking about. AA blurs the image and makes it look worse.

4k looks phenomenally better both in television and in rendering, it will be affordable next year, and in everybody's Blu-Ray player in 2017.

4k on Blu-Ray requires a special '4k blu-ray' player and not the ones currently out. Blu-Ray was a hard to adopt option for movie watching until it became standard on the PS3. Sony and Microsoft claim that the PS4 and Xbone will be able to support 4k Blu-Ray movies once they come out, but it might require a hardware revision/redesign.

 

[logainofhades]

Given the graphics horsepower that PS4 and Xbone have, 4k should not be a problem, so it would depend more on the drive itself being able to support it.

 

[Blueberries]

4k Blu-Ray is already in production and discs are already available.

 

[Blueberries]

Actually what I really want to see is the Fury X power usage at 1080p / 1440p with FRTC enabled, because that's important when you release a card with 275W Board Power.

 

[Vlad Rose]

4k Blu-Ray is already in production and discs are already available.

The players that natively play 4k UHD won't be out until late 2015. The current ones out there can only do 1080p and upscale to 4k.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/01/4k-blu-ray-players-are-finally-coming-later-in-2015/index.htm

and

http://www.amazon.com/b?node=10195182011

But yes, movies are out already.

 

[Blueberries]

4k Blu-Ray is already in production and discs are already available.

The players that natively play 4k UHD won't be out until late 2015. The current ones out there can only do 1080p and upscale to 4k.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/01/4k-blu-ray-players-are-finally-coming-later-in-2015/index.htm

and

http://www.amazon.com/b?node=10195182011

But yes, movies are out already.

Like I said, I don't predict 4k UHD Blu-Ray players to be mainstream until 2017.

 

[youssef 2010]

That's GREAT news. Why is it that the solution to every technical problem is to go vertical?

We needed more storage for SSDs and Samsung Went Vertical. And now to add more Vram to GPUs, HBM goes vertical. Weird coincidence.