AMD Radeon R9 300 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

[de5_Roy]

AMD Fury X Performance Benchmarks
http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-performance-benchmarks-idnum360/

 

[renz496]

Agreed. Nano probably will be the most impressive thing AMD have come out since the mighty 5k series 😀

Price wise most likely AMD going put nano accordingly to competition. Seeing how they priced Fury X at the same level as 980ti i doubt they will try to undercut nvidia.

 

[renz496]

Reviews are in. Something interesting found with TPU review. The performance gap between 980ti and Fury X widen going down resolution.

 

[de5_Roy]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196.html
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4 GB Review
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/
AMD's Radeon R9 Fury X graphics card reviewed
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed
AMD's Radeon Goes Premium with the Fury X
http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/24/amds-radeon-goes-premium-with-the-fury-x/
Overclocking AMD's Fury X
http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/24/overclocking-amds-fury-x/
Frame Rate Limiting with AMD's Fury X
http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/24/frame-rate-limiting-with-amds-fury-x/
Review: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb/
MAINGEAR shows off new gaming rigs with AMD Radeon R9 Fury X GPUs
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46079/maingear-shows-new-gaming-rigs-amd-radeon-r9-fury-gpus/index.html
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X review
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review,1.html
Introduction to Fiji - AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Card Review
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Fiji And HBM Put To The Test
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Card Review -AMD Unleashes The Radeon R9 Fury X Video Card
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-video-card-review_167134

 

[17seconds]

22 gaming benchmarks averaged out for a cumulative score.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

 

[Eggz]

AMD Fury X Performance Benchmarks
http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-performance-benchmarks-idnum360/

Pretty impressive! If AMD can compete on price against the 980 ti, even a little, that's a pretty nice step forward for them.

 

[17seconds]

5% faster at 1080p than a $480 GTX 980 is not too good, not to mention 14% slower than a GTX 980 Ti. Consider overclocking, and there's no reason to get this card at that resolution.

 

[sinty]

Gosh, I hate to say I told you so. But, it was clear weeks ago that the Fury X would be a worse option than the 980TI.

-Same price
-Same performance
-New memory tech design meant nothing outside of cutting down the size
-New smaller size means nothing beacuse it has a fan attached to it that wont fit into smaller cases that already have liquid cooling just one space for a fan on the rear, so you'll have to buy a new larger case just for the smaller gpu.
-AMD has a history of ignoring all customers with driver needs for the better end of a full year between GPU model releases, so if you have Fury X issues, you'll likely not see them noted and fixed for a very long time.
-Price on the Fury X will not drop for well over a year, just like the R9 290x and most of AMDs cards.

Nvidia's marketing is awful, but AMD's is worse. As an AMD user, they've left me no choice here but to fall back to Nividia for the foreseeable future. The 980TI will actually not require me to buy a large case despite it being a longer card, is the same price and offers the same performance as the Fury X. However, the 980TI will drop in price in a few months, if that as Nvidia rolls out another new GPU later in the year as they always do. Nvidia is more prompt to release driver patches and is CLEARLY optimized for a number of the new games, where as AMD still isn't getting on that ship and won't be any time soon.

Nvidia is the clear winner hear, based on objective information. But, none of this matters because the 295x2 is cheaper than both and still outperforms them. Nobody should be buying the 980TI or the new AMD cards when the damn 295x is a lot better than both and so much cheaper! What on earth is AMD and Nvidia smoking, this is a hell of a poor attempt to suck money out of our wallets. Dont give either your money for the 390x, Fury X or the 980TI.

Hell, SLI 970's is STILL better than the lot of them. Ugh. The clear winner of the year is SLI 970s. You get more performance at a cheaper price and will receive patches with Nvidia, you wont get patches with Crossfire 290xs or the 295x2.

 

[Eggz]

Nvidia is the clear winner hear, based on objective information.

This is both wrong and misspelled (it's "here"). The objective information put the Titan X/980 ti on parity with the Fury X.

[T]he Radeon R9 Fury X delivers performance surreally similar to Nvidia’s 980 Ti. Sure, the GM200-based board tends to finish ahead at 2560x1440, while the Fury’s massive memory bandwidth gives it the advantage at 3840x2160. In either case, though, you’d have a tough time telling the two cards apart.

So let’s say performance is a wash. Price, too, is comparable—the Radeon R9 Fury X is expected to sell for the same $650. What’s left to base a recommendation on? Power? Form factor? Features? Functionality?

.

The quote's from a long article with all sorts of objective data. Take a look.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-9.html

 

[-Fran-]

I would say the Fury X is not a bad card, no matter how you want to bring it down. Simple reason is: take a look at the frametime variance data. Not so long ago nVidia shouted to the 4 winds about how "consistent" they were and how important that was. Now, at 4K, the target audience for Fury X, 980ti and Titan X, AMD has managed to edge out even the Titan X... With a beta driver. That means it can only get better from now on. Power consumption numbers, great achievement I'd say as well. PowerTune the big surprise of the review and the cooling, hands down beats any aftermarket solution OEMs want to slap to a 980ti or Titan X, without making you take a mortgage on your house to get one.

You can now say with confidence it is a good alternative to a 980ti for 4K. And at 1080p, the 970 will be king until something else comes out from either camp; no surprises there (price/perf). The 980 was rendered useless even for SLI and now the 980ti is justifying it's price point accordingly trading blows with the Fury X on several disciplines. It is good to see nVidia did know something we didn't when they put out the 980ti so quick and at that price point. That will be a reference for the future, haha.

If you or anyone wants to nitpick, yes, 4GB is a real limitation going down the road and no argument to be had against that. Here and now, "it don't matter, brah", haha.

Cheers!

 

[sinty]

Um. No. That article literally restates everything I did, but with specific details. The Fury X and the 980TI are almost the same in performance. All you did was read the first line of the Conclusion and assume they meant the Fury card is superior. The quote is as follows: "AMD’s fans wanted to see an ultra-high-end powerhouse capable of creaming GeForce GTX 980 Ti"

You seem to have taken that in the wrong direction and thought it said AMD has the superior GPU. Your eye clearly only caught the parts that said only "AMD fans wanted" and "creamed 980TI". Every page in that review showcases the Fury X and the 980TI to be too close to call one or the other superior. You didn't read their review, please do so again and I'll be happy to discuss what they've stated in it and how it mirrored my own statements almost to the letter.

Nvidia is the clear winner hear, based on objective information.

This is both wrong and misspelled (it's "here"). The objective information put the Titan X/980 ti on parity with the Fury X.

[T]he Radeon R9 Fury X delivers performance surreally similar to Nvidia’s 980 Ti. Sure, the GM200-based board tends to finish ahead at 2560x1440, while the Fury’s massive memory bandwidth gives it the advantage at 3840x2160. In either case, though, you’d have a tough time telling the two cards apart.

So let’s say performance is a wash. Price, too, is comparable—the Radeon R9 Fury X is expected to sell for the same $650. What’s left to base a recommendation on? Power? Form factor? Features? Functionality?

.

The quote's from a long article with all sorts of objective data. Take a look.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-9.html

 

[Jak_Sparra]

AMD Fury X Performance Benchmarks
http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/amd-fury-x-performance-benchmarks-idnum360/

22 gaming benchmarks averaged out for a cumulative score.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

Thank you for this.

 

[Eggz]

Arguing about what an article said (and I read it word-for-word) is hard to do with someone who can't even keep track of their own words.

First you said this:

Nvidia is the clear winner hear, based on objective information.

Then you said almost the exact opposite.

Every page in [Tom's] review showcases the Fury X and the 980TI to be too close to call one or the other superior, [which] mirrored my own statements almost to the letter.

Here's what I actually said, which I supported with a quote from the main point of the article saying the cards perform roughly the same (article called it a "wash").

[O]bjective information puts the Titan X/980 ti on parity with the Fury X.

Reading is one thing, and writing is another, but it's also important to remember what you read and write.

P.S. Here's the def. for "parity" just in case you need it: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parity

 

[zared619]

I am in no way saying the Fury X is better than a 980Ti out of the box. It isn't. However, I'd like to see some benchmarks with both the Fury X and 980Ti overclocked. With liquid cooling and all the extra room that AMD allotted for power, I would bet that with both cards overclocked, that the Fury X would overclock better and close the gap. I'm not saying it will beat it, but I definitely think it could close the performance gap.

Side note: I imagine a lot of driver optimizations could be made for HBM.

 

[renz496]

I am in no way saying the Fury X is better than a 980Ti out of the box. It isn't. However, I'd like to see some benchmarks with both the Fury X and 980Ti overclocked. With liquid cooling and all the extra room that AMD allotted for power, I would bet that with both cards overclocked, that the Fury X would overclock better and close the gap. I'm not saying it will beat it, but I definitely think it could close the performance gap.

Side note: I imagine a lot of driver optimizations could be made for HBM.

Maximum overclock of our sample is 1150 MHz GPU clock (10% overclock). GPU overclocking potential is quite slim. AMD hinted at much higher overclocking potential in their briefings, so I'm a bit disappointed.

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 5.1%.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html

This is where the actual overclocking occurs, and in reality I was never able to get the Fury X to run at more than a 10% overclock stable.

I left the GPU temperature target at 75C though we never really got close to that in real-world testing; it wasn't a bottleneck.

My net result: a clock speed of 1155 MHz rather than 1050 MHz, an increase of 10%.

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

Overclocking the R9 Fury X is a straightforward affair: simply use AMD’s Overdrive utility to increase GPU clock speeds and its Power Limit. Our card hit an absolute wall at the 1175Mhz mark and exhibited some fluctuations down as low as 1136MHz in some situations. On average, we’d comfortably say 1160MHz was an “average” clock speed which only represents about 10% of frequency overhead.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-21.html

 

[zared619]

I am in no way saying the Fury X is better than a 980Ti out of the box. It isn't. However, I'd like to see some benchmarks with both the Fury X and 980Ti overclocked. With liquid cooling and all the extra room that AMD allotted for power, I would bet that with both cards overclocked, that the Fury X would overclock better and close the gap. I'm not saying it will beat it, but I definitely think it could close the performance gap.

Side note: I imagine a lot of driver optimizations could be made for HBM.

Maximum overclock of our sample is 1150 MHz GPU clock (10% overclock). GPU overclocking potential is quite slim. AMD hinted at much higher overclocking potential in their briefings, so I'm a bit disappointed.

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 5.1%.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html

This is where the actual overclocking occurs, and in reality I was never able to get the Fury X to run at more than a 10% overclock stable.

I left the GPU temperature target at 75C though we never really got close to that in real-world testing; it wasn't a bottleneck.

My net result: a clock speed of 1155 MHz rather than 1050 MHz, an increase of 10%.

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

Overclocking the R9 Fury X is a straightforward affair: simply use AMD’s Overdrive utility to increase GPU clock speeds and its Power Limit. Our card hit an absolute wall at the 1175Mhz mark and exhibited some fluctuations down as low as 1136MHz in some situations. On average, we’d comfortably say 1160MHz was an “average” clock speed which only represents about 10% of frequency overhead.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-21.html

Thanks for that. Now I'm even more disappointed. I really wanted them to finally get back in the lead with this. I hope they break the trend of less-than-stellar driver updates.

 

[17seconds]

You didn't even mention that the Fury X doesn't allow memory overclocking.

 

[Bossyfins]

I am checking if it has trie dx12.1 support, but it shows nothing

 

[17seconds]

Nope, the Fury X has the same level of Directx 12.0 support as the other recent GCN cards.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives-5.html

Quote:
"We’ve already highlighted AMD’s use of an upscaled and slightly upgraded Tonga-based architecture for the creation of Fiji. This has a direct impact upon how it goes about supporting the various Feature Levels within the Direct3D 12 ecosystem. Since Tonga utilizes the same basic design as previous generation GCN 1.1 parts and AMD has stated there aren’t any additional DX12-focused features in Fiji, the Fury series boasts Feature Level 12_0 support. Meanwhile, the Maxwell architecture goes full-on with Feature Level 12_1. With that being said AMD does support Tier 3 resource binding which is a step above NVIDIA’s current designs and Fiji’s Asynchronous Compute Engines could also prove to be a huge differentiating factor."

 

[Bossyfins]

That too is disappointing. AMD shows all this great hardware, but fails to show the minute details.

 

[Jonny HS]

They shloud price this at 600$ or something like that, but not price it to be againt the 980ti, becouse between the Fury (650) and the 980ti (650), the Ti still performing a little bit better. If they prie it at a lower price, everybody will but it fast, but they need profit.

 

[Bossyfins]

They probably had to reduce the price already because of the 980 ti. While I can't confirm that, 650 seems pretty low for something with HBM.

 

[17seconds]

They probably had to reduce the price already because of the 980 ti. While I can't confirm that, 650 seems pretty low for something with HBM.

Absolutely, that's the whole reason that the GTX 980 Ti was released when it was, about a month before the Fury. Nvidia basically told AMD that their new, expensive-to-produce Fury could only be sold for no more than $650. I'm sure AMD had the $1000 Titan X in its sights originally when it was thinking about its pricing. $650's got to be painful for them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price of $599 in the very near future. I just don't see these things being all that popular over the GTX 980 Ti.


And then you get reviews like this one from HardOCP:

The Bottom Line
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.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYzQfPlVhBc

 

[Jonny HS]

They probably had to reduce the price already because of the 980 ti. While I can't confirm that, 650 seems pretty low for something with HBM.

Absolutely, that's the whole reason that the GTX 980 Ti was released when it was, about a month before the Fury. Nvidia basically told AMD that their new, expensive-to-produce Fury could only be sold for no more than $650. I'm sure AMD had the $1000 Titan X in its sights originally when it was thinking about its pricing. $650's got to be painful for them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price of $599 in the very near future. I just don't see these things being all that popular over the GTX 980 Ti.


And then you get reviews like this one from HardOCP:

The Bottom Line
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.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYzQfPlVhBc

Well... maybe the Nano and the Fury Non X are going to be less disappointing, thanks to their prices.

 

[17seconds]

They probably had to reduce the price already because of the 980 ti. While I can't confirm that, 650 seems pretty low for something with HBM.

Absolutely, that's the whole reason that the GTX 980 Ti was released when it was, about a month before the Fury. Nvidia basically told AMD that their new, expensive-to-produce Fury could only be sold for no more than $650. I'm sure AMD had the $1000 Titan X in its sights originally when it was thinking about its pricing. $650's got to be painful for them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price of $599 in the very near future. I just don't see these things being all that popular over the GTX 980 Ti.

Well... maybe the Nano and the Fury Non X are going to be less disappointing, thanks to their prices.

Hope springs eternal.