AMD Radeon R9 300 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
things look great on paper with out the box clocks, but with the evga acx cooled 980ti running unigine valley/heaven in a loop and a slightly more aggressive than stock setting fan curve and hitting 80c max on the core, reports are the average overclock is 1350mhz +/-50mhz. thats a 18-27% horsepower gain that will scale nearly perfectly to gaming performance forget power consumption.

under similar ambient conditions, using the same cooler(twin frozr, acx, windforce, etc)can overclocked 80c max temp fury beat gm200 in the top graphical tier most played games at 1080 and 1440. since it looks like the fury x wont be released with custom board partner air coolers we can only measure against the 980 ti. 4k is not a realistic benchmark, less than 1% of pc gamers are using it, and its at least another 1 1/2 to 2 years away from being a realistic resolution to play at.
 


i think it should be fine even the memory cannot be OCed since Fury already have lots of bandwidth available. also this is the first time GPU getting HBM so it might be AMD own decision to lock memory overclocking. when nvidia first use GDDR5 on Fermi, all first gen fermi cannot OC their memory much. nvidia only fix it with second gen fermi.

also many hope that the AIO on Fury will get huge OC headroom for Fury. a few days before Fury review goes live TR post a preview on Fiji architecture. it is then i'd think that AIO on Fury probably will not going to guarantee huge OC headroom on Fury.

One other power optimization in the Fury X really isn't a GCN improvement, but it helps explain why Fiji is able to run at ~1GHz with less board power than the 290X. It has to do with that liquid cooler. AMD has cited operating temperatures around 52C for the GPU on this card, and operating at such low temperatures tamps down on leakage power in pretty dramatic fashion. The transistors on a warmer chip will leak more and thus require more power. By cooling Fiji aggressively, the Fury X likely saves a non-trivial amount of wattage that would otherwise be wasted. This fact is noteworthy in this context because it suggests the power-oriented improvements in Fury X aren't all related to more efficient GPU architecture per se.
Click to expand...

http://techreport.com/review/28499/amd-radeon-fury-x-architecture-revealed/2
 

HardOCP is a trash website. They are so bias against AMD it's just ridiculous. How can they comment that the Fury X should be put against a 980 when it beats a Titan X at 4k in some of the bench's. They can probably optimise the card with some new drivers as well.
If I was buying a card right now for $650 I would get a 980ti, however I wouldn't be so stupid as to totally trash the Fury X like those idiots have done.
It just makes them even more of a joke than they already were.
The only reason you would read the garbage HardOCP spew out would be to feel good about your Nvidia purchase if you started getting buyers remorse.
 


honestly i don't know. i think [H] often invited to AMD event in the past. at one point you can said they were much closer to AMD than nvidia. i've read some of the conclusion from [H] Fury X review it seems they were pissed at AMD try to spin Fury X hard into good light regardless of real world situation we are in today. at least that's the impression that i got.
 
I would suggest that we have to wait for the Fury non-X benchies to arrive. That card is the same, or aims to be, clock wise as the Fury X. That won't be water cooled and it's going to be way cheaper. If the heat will be something to take into account, we'll know by then. Like I also said, if it performs at 90% of Fury X'es capability, it will be a winner.

In any case, I'll keep my take on Fury X: it is a replacement for the 980ti. Especially for the factory warranted water cooling solution at that price point. Although an aftermarket one could be better at it's job; Tom's already published one.

Cheers!
 
This entire discussion is overlooking the "early adopter premium." New tech is always more expensive, because manufacturing it costs more when your factories only have a small area dedicated to producing it. It's the same reason why Titan always costs so much, or any other new tech.

The Fury X (and any card out with HBM in the near future) will costs more because GPUs have never been made that way before. Both Intel and Nvidia usually reserve the $1,000 price point for the bleeding edge chips that get cherry picked off the production line. AMD is delivering that for $650.

As I said above, looking at FPS on two cards is a short sighted way to assess the value of a technology. The fact of the matter is that the 980 ti is a much cheaper card to manufacture, which is great for Nvidia. Titan X gave their manufacturing process a few months to scale up.

Does any of this change the fact that performance numbers fall where they fall? Of course not! It's just putting things in perspective. We should expect great things from AMD's new architecture.
 

not just in this thread. apparently all the non-toms/at tech writers forgot about tech trends on fury launch day. i was slightly appalled by the asinine things some of these experienced, long time veteran reviewers said. i am used to reading these in random forum posters but not from those guys.
 
I ended up buying a 980 ti yesterday and I am going to get the aio water cooling addition when it comes back in stock. I'm not bashing the fury x but I am somewhat disappointed in the performance at that price. Like others have said, if it was perhaps priced at $600 or $549 and delivered this performance, it would stand a chance. OR if you could oc it like you can a reference card 980 ti. I spoke to several people I trust who have custom cooled setups and sli configurations on some other beastly cards, who also own the 980 ti reference cards and can hit like 1400Mhz before running into heat issues or instability with no water.

It's in now way, shape or form a horrible card, it is just priced wrong, except for people who will ONLY buy AMD products. And yes
 


What your friends forgot to mention are 2 things:

1.- There is a non-watercooled version coming up next called "Fury" (sans the "X" moniker) for quite a lot less dosh. EDIT: It's the same GPU underneath (clocks and RAM, supposedly), but using a OEM provided HSF instead of the custom made CoolerMaster Watercooling.
2.- If you take a look at some reviews, where they actually measure things and not hype the few nVidia wins, the Fury X is just a tad worse, but offers watercooling from factory, with warranty at the same price point the 980ti comes as reference.

And also, for everyone reading, please take a look at this: http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-tested-not-quite-a-980-ti-killer/

Look for the "Update" part. They forgot to tell people reading their review they used a OC'ed 980ti. I'm not against using OC'ed cards as long as you mention it, but man... They based most of their conclusion on that difference. Scumbags.

Cheers!

EDIT: Added more to the post.
 


Stock to stock performance.....yes the furyx can be very close and trade blows with the 980 ti but it by no means beats it and I am not taking that from Fury but what I am saying is when you drop $649 on a card, you want the best value for your money. Performance, longevity, features, support, oc headroom...etc. If the Furyx had oc room from the start, instead of the paltry oc figures they have managed to achieve as of now, I likely would have bought it because it is already aio cooled. But since you can't, in my opinion, it should also be noted and should be a viable position to compare an oc 980 ti to an oc furyx. In this day and age, oc is soooo easy and almost expected from even a novice gamer. Again, I am not bashing fury, just disappointed cause I actually wanted that card.
 
The Fury pro, air cooled that you speak of might have more oc room but heat heat heat and it is not a full chip, it is a cutdown I believe, similar to the 980 ti and titanx and then will have 10% or so less performance maybe. It will be a better card at that price, but I think $499 is where that would need to be. The nano is nice also as long as they get price right.


 
Additional links, to help you buy what you want

http://www.gamingpcbuilder.com/sapphire-releases-radeon-r9-390x-tri-x-8gb-graphics-card/

http://www.gamingpcbuilder.com/visiontek-announces-radeon-r9-fury-x-virtual-reality-ready-graphic-cards/
 
I found this. It's a simple analysis, but helps show that the 4GB VRAM limitation for the Fury X is not a real problem, but a more "nVidia has it, AMD don't" kind of thing: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/208874-amds-radeon-fury-x-previewing-performance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/2

I'm not saying it won't matter down the road, because it will. History is wise in saying VRAM usage goes up on each new game and eye-candy being used, so it would be hard to argue otherwise.

What that analysis shows is that the only game that is being affected right now by RAM usage is Shadow of Mordor. And when the VRAM becomes a problem, none of the cards give playable framerates anyway, so it's a mere academic showing. Especially interesting is the FPS tendency for the Fury X.

Cheers!
 


Oh, man... All the hate in that comment section makes our AMD thread look like the holy grail, haha.

Well, the score looks fine, but AMD needs to step up with the drivers and soon. That scaling could use some work.

Cheers!
 


every nvidia/AMD articles in WCCFTECH will turn out like that. but i think they like that kind of attention to their article.
 



Haha, yeah it is brutal over there but before Furyx benchmarks came out the AMD fans were trolling pretty hard also. It's a fanboy club over there but you can find some people who actually know their sheet.
 
So i've decided to wait until fury releases on july 14th, anyone have any clues as too the clocks we should see over the reference x? I doubt we'll see higher hbm, but i'm hoping something that can at least rival if not exceed a 980 ti.
 

If you're talking about an air-cooled, cut down version of the Fury X, then I wouldn't expect it to beat a GTX 980 Ti.
 
man that just makes it depressing. Here i was saving my money to get at least good as a 980 ti card. Even if it were a little worse 2, 3 frames i could live with that. I mean it's a non reference card and overclocking should help at least more so then the reference fury x right? Custom pcb's maybe ones with custom waterblocks? Or is that not even going to happen on the account of fury x?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom