AMD Radeon R9 300 Series MegaThread: FAQ and Resources

[-Fran-]

i check at a little while ago and it wasn't up yet.
*starts reading*

edit:
Crossfire and SLI market is just 300.000 units
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/38134-crossfire-and-sli-market-is-just-300-000-units

Wow... That number seems awfully low. I know it was small, but not THAT small...

I wonder if that's just a number for "higher tier" SLI/XFire setups? Like, $300+ video cards only or something?

Because that number is not even a single digit percentage of the whole sales, is it?

Cheers!

 

[juanrga]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

Anandtech's review is finally up.

They agree with me on the 4GB discussion and actually use very similar arguments, but they have data to back it up 😛

Their conclusion:

The last issue that dogs AMD here is VRAM capacity. At the end of the day first-generation HBM limits them to 4GB of VRAM, and while they’ve made a solid effort to work around the problem, there is only so much they can do. 4GB is enough right now, but I am concerned that R9 Fury X owners will run into VRAM capacity issues before the card is due for a replacement even under an accelerated 2 year replacement schedule.

Once you get to a straight-up comparison, the problem AMD faces is that the GTX 980 Ti is the safer bet. On average it performs better at every resolution, it has more VRAM, it consumes a bit less power, and NVIDIA’s drivers are lean enough that we aren’t seeing CPU bottlenecking that would impact owners of 144Hz displays. To that end the R9 Fury X is by no means a bad card – in fact it’s quite a good card – but NVIDIA struck first and struck with a slightly better card, and this is the situation AMD must face. At the end of the day one could do just fine with the R9 Fury X, it’s just not what I believe to be the best card at $649.

They even mention in the review that AMD was well aware of the problem and devoted two engineers to VRAM optimization, whereas "the marketing side of AMD needs to convince potential buyers that 4GB is enough".

This part of the review is also worth mentioning:

To be clear, we can without fail “break” the R9 Fury X and place it in situations where performance nosedives because it has run out of VRAM. However of the tests we’ve put together, those cases are essentially edge cases; any scenario we come up with that breaks the R9 Fury X also results in average framerates that are too low to be playable in the first place. So it is very difficult (though I do not believe impossible) to come up with a scenario where the R9 Fury X would produce playable framerates if only it had more VRAM.

 

[de5_Roy]

likely higher tier.
a Lot of people run lower mid to entry level cards in cfx/sli like radeon hd 7770 cfx, gtx 660 sli.

edit:
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Cards in CrossFire
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7226/amd-radeon-r9-fury-video-cards-crossfire/index.html

 

[-Fran-]

Their conclusion:

The last issue that dogs AMD here is VRAM capacity. At the end of the day first-generation HBM limits them to 4GB of VRAM, and while they’ve made a solid effort to work around the problem, there is only so much they can do. 4GB is enough right now, but I am concerned that R9 Fury X owners will run into VRAM capacity issues before the card is due for a replacement even under an accelerated 2 year replacement schedule.

Once you get to a straight-up comparison, the problem AMD faces is that the GTX 980 Ti is the safer bet. On average it performs better at every resolution, it has more VRAM, it consumes a bit less power, and NVIDIA’s drivers are lean enough that we aren’t seeing CPU bottlenecking that would impact owners of 144Hz displays. To that end the R9 Fury X is by no means a bad card – in fact it’s quite a good card – but NVIDIA struck first and struck with a slightly better card, and this is the situation AMD must face. At the end of the day one could do just fine with the R9 Fury X, it’s just not what I believe to be the best card at $649.

They even mention in the review that AMD was well aware of the problem and devoted two engineers to VRAM optimization, whereas "the marketing side of AMD needs to convince potential buyers that 4GB is enough".

This part of the review is also worth mentioning:

So with that in mind, let’s attempt to answer the question at hand: is 4GB enough VRAM for R9 Fury X? Is it enough for a $650 card?

The short answer is yes, at the moment it’s enough, if just barely.

To be clear, we can without fail “break” the R9 Fury X and place it in situations where performance nosedives because it has run out of VRAM. However of the tests we’ve put together, those cases are essentially edge cases; any scenario we come up with that breaks the R9 Fury X also results in average framerates that are too low to be playable in the first place. So it is very difficult (though I do not believe impossible) to come up with a scenario where the R9 Fury X would produce playable framerates if only it had more VRAM.

Yes, they agree with me wholeheartedly.

The bold added text part is what you missed

Cheers!

EDIT: I won't try and convince you, Juan. I'll stop here.

@de5_Roy: that scaling is good at 4K, but darn it for lower resolutions. They have a lot of work to do for 1440p and similar. I wonder how they will work for multi monitor setups.

Now, that XFire test is a good prelude on what to expect from the dual GPU card they have in the works. I can see the thinking on this one more clearly after reading Anandtech's review a tad better: Launch Fury X with half cooked drivers (the "good enough for now" approach), launch Fury with improved drivers after the initial batch of reviews and feedback. Fury X will more than likely be re-tested in most reviews and/or give it another shot with new drivers. And lastly, launch the dual GPU card with Fury Nano with polished drivers that include scaling fixes from XFire reviews and improved Power Tuning. For once in a very long time, I think AMD's plan is not such a bad one. They seem to be learning... Finally, haha.

 

[con635]

Do any toms reviewers actually read these threads? Anyone know their forum names?

 

[17seconds]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

 

[de5_Roy]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

i hope they don't. although there's less stupidity in forum threads than in the comments. unless i am posting ...

 

[17seconds]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

i hope they don't. although there's less stupidity in forum threads than in the comments. unless i am posting ...

You'll get no argument me from me there. :lol:

 

[juanrga]

Their conclusion:

The last issue that dogs AMD here is VRAM capacity. At the end of the day first-generation HBM limits them to 4GB of VRAM, and while they’ve made a solid effort to work around the problem, there is only so much they can do. 4GB is enough right now, but I am concerned that R9 Fury X owners will run into VRAM capacity issues before the card is due for a replacement even under an accelerated 2 year replacement schedule.

Once you get to a straight-up comparison, the problem AMD faces is that the GTX 980 Ti is the safer bet. On average it performs better at every resolution, it has more VRAM, it consumes a bit less power, and NVIDIA’s drivers are lean enough that we aren’t seeing CPU bottlenecking that would impact owners of 144Hz displays. To that end the R9 Fury X is by no means a bad card – in fact it’s quite a good card – but NVIDIA struck first and struck with a slightly better card, and this is the situation AMD must face. At the end of the day one could do just fine with the R9 Fury X, it’s just not what I believe to be the best card at $649.

They even mention in the review that AMD was well aware of the problem and devoted two engineers to VRAM optimization, whereas "the marketing side of AMD needs to convince potential buyers that 4GB is enough".

This part of the review is also worth mentioning:

So with that in mind, let’s attempt to answer the question at hand: is 4GB enough VRAM for R9 Fury X? Is it enough for a $650 card?

The short answer is yes, at the moment it’s enough, if just barely.

To be clear, we can without fail “break” the R9 Fury X and place it in situations where performance nosedives because it has run out of VRAM. However of the tests we’ve put together, those cases are essentially edge cases; any scenario we come up with that breaks the R9 Fury X also results in average framerates that are too low to be playable in the first place. So it is very difficult (though I do not believe impossible) to come up with a scenario where the R9 Fury X would produce playable framerates if only it had more VRAM.

Yes, they agree with me wholeheartedly.

The bold added text part is what you missed

Key words: "just barely".

And then they extend their answer and note that their testing wasn't exhaustive and in some special configurations the VRAM limit would be an issue today. Moreover, they make clear that the VRAM issue will be a problem 'tomorrow'. They even claim that the new card will be bottlenecked in less than two years and recommend the 980Ti because, among other benefits, "has more VRAM".

There are consensus among several reviews (Eurogammer, Anandtech, HardOC,...)on that the 4GB limit will be a bottleneck in future, with some review (e.g. PCGamer) claiming that it is an issue today.

 

[con635]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

i hope they don't. although there's less stupidity in forum threads than in the comments. unless i am posting ...

I just wanted to ask about 'iqgate' which is brewing on some other forums.

 

[17seconds]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

i hope they don't. although there's less stupidity in forum threads than in the comments. unless i am posting ...

I just wanted to ask about 'iqgate' which is brewing on some other forums.

Do you have a link to this? If it's what I think it is, it wouldn't be the first time AMD has been caught altering image quality for the benefit of artificially increased benchmark results.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/exploring-ati-image-quality-optimizations,1.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-570-gf110-performance,2806-5.html

 

[de5_Roy]

I just wanted to ask about 'iqgate' which is brewing on some other forums.

afaik, both have done it in the past in various ways. the only one doesn't (actually can't) do this is intel. 😆

 

[17seconds]

I just wanted to ask about 'iqgate' which is brewing on some other forums.

afaik, both have done it in the past in various ways. the only one doesn't (actually can't) do this is intel. 😆

Do you have a link to this? I'm conducting some research.

 

[de5_Roy]

Do you have a link to this? I'm conducting some research.

Crysis 2 tessellation: too much of a good thing?
http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/6
AMD Alleges NVIDIA Cheats in HD HQV
http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Alleges+NVIDIA+Cheats+in+HD+HQV/article8608.htm
Futuremark says Nvidia didn't cheat, but broke rules
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2680144/applications/futuremark-says-nvidia-didn-t-cheat--but-broke-rules.html

i don't clearly remember many of these. mind you there's a lot of semantics, blaming at play here.

i'll add more if i find any.

 

[de5_Roy]

AMD Radeon R9 Nano Might Feature The Full Fiji GPU - 4096 Stream Processors, Lower Clock Speeds Due To Thermal Limit
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-nano-feature-full-fiji-gpu-4096-stream-processors-clock-speeds-due-thermal-limit/
Yes, AMD Radeon R9 Fury Has 3584 GCN Stream Processors - Features Fiji Pro GPU And Launching With A Variety Of Air Coolers
http://wccftech.com/wip-amd-r9-fury-3584-gcn-stream-processors/

 

[-Fran-]

Too bad Fury won't have the same amount of enabled SPs. It appears the yields are still bad enough to remove a lot of SPs form the card. a 25% reduction almost.

I wonder how that will translate to performance... If we make it simple and linear, it should be sitting under the 980 in 1080p and even 1440p, but regain terrain in some games at 1440p and then 4K. Hopefully it will beat the 970 and 390X in every single turn.

Still, $100 cheaper might not be worth it for Fury if it barely surpasses the 980... Although if they maintain the performance all the way up to 4K as close as possible to Fury X, they could make the 980ti a tougher sell, and make the Fury X an special OC icon or something. Uhm... I guess the drivers and their state of polish will cut this deal.

Options, options...

Cheers!

 

[de5_Roy]

AMD Fury X Memory Overclocking Unlocked In MSI Afterburner - HBM Overclocked And Benchmarked, GPU Voltage Control Coming
http://wccftech.com/unlock-memory-overclocking-amd-r9-fury/

Visiontek Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review
http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/visiontek-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb-review/
Specifications of AMD Radeon R9 Fury and AMD Radeon R9 Nano revealed
http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/specifications-of-amd-radeon-r9-fury-and-amd-radeon-r9-nano-revealed/

Pricing on the ASUS Radeon R9 Fury STRIX leaked
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/46300/pricing-asus-radeon-r9-fury-strix-leaked/index.html

 

[-Fran-]

It's nice to see the Fury X finally starting to deliver on the OC promise made by AMD. The OC scaling looks nice (very nice actually), but it's a bummer you need to OC HBM and GPU to get decent performance numbers improvements (individually they suck). So, if AMD is to be believed, both HBM and GPU have plenty of room. I wonder how far will reviewers will be willing to push them.

What I can interpret from those numbers, is that if you can make the Fury X OC each clock by 15% (preview did 8%), you would be on top of the 980ti all the time. Man, we need a OC vs OC test soon. That will be a blood bath for sure, haha.

Also, I wonder if on the 14th we'll get to see a decent showing of Fury; hopefully the Fiji OC debate will settle and reviewers will be able to OC with Afterburner or Trixx.

Cheers!

 

[Genzo]

From my perspective. The Fury X is kinda lacking for me. I was expecting that it will outperform the 980 Ti and maybe Titan X but they released a new tech for consumers. "HBM" is new and i think amd didnt fully optimize the card before the release. I rather wait a good card that can beat out Nvidia's 980 Ti.

I heard some people say the drivers aren't updated and the card isnt that overclockable. I like the new HBM tech but it didnt meet my expectations.

They can still dominate the market if

*optimize the card and make it overclockable
*better drivers
*Let the Manufacturers redesign it (Like the HDMI 2.0 Thing)

 

[-Fran-]

From my perspective. The Fury X is kinda lacking for me. I was expecting that it will outperform the 980 Ti and maybe Titan X but they released a new tech for consumers. "HBM" is new and i think amd didnt fully optimize the card before the release. I rather wait a good card that can beat out Nvidia's 980 Ti.

I heard some people say the drivers aren't updated and the card isnt that overclockable. I like the new HBM tech but it didnt meet my expectations.

They can still dominate the market if

*optimize the card and make it overclockable
*better drivers
*Let the Manufacturers redesign it (Like the HDMI 2.0 Thing)

Well, read the last post from de5_Roy; in particular the first link. They have shown the OC debacle saying the Fury X has no OC room is not because of the actual card not having the ability to OC, but the tools to achieve a decent OC are not ready yet for the Fury X.

And yes, AMD did not fully optimize drivers for the Fury X debut, but they still have 3 more Fiji family member in the works: Fury (non-X), Fury Nano and Fury X2 (the dual GPU card). When they arrive, the generalized consensus is that drivers will be better (or at least, a tad more polished). In AMD's defense, that has been the tune since like forever. The improve gradually over time with each driver release, even surpassing nVidia in a lot of games where they originally didn't were on par at times.

And in regards to the HDMI 2.0 thing. The one that will suffer the most for that will be the Fury Nano I would say. That card, from what I have been reading everywhere, will be the HTPC king if it can deliver on the performance / watt package for small enclosures and small PSUs. The other cards, not so much. Plus, DP 1.2 adapters to HDMI 2.0 should be coming soon-ish. There are already DP 1.2 to HDMI 1.4 everywhere, but give the Chinese a few more weeks, haha.

So, all in all, not saying the Fury X is the holy grail, but don't dismiss it so early in the game. Give it until AMD releases all the Fiji line up. In any case, if you want to get a Fury X or a 980ti, either one will make you happy. Or at least, that's the message I've gotten from all the reviews and the data they have put forward.

Cheers!

 

[de5_Roy]

it's a typical move.

when nvidia brags about maxwell's (i.e. 980ti and titan x) overclockability, amd will just unlock fiji card's (regardless of end performance). right now, it's all about rolling out the flagship as it is.

you might see more semi/custom cards with vanila fury and nano. i doubt amd will let people o.c. and release non-ref. fury x so soon after launch.

 

[con635]

I don't think the reviewers cruise the forums much. When they respond in the comments section of their review, they usually have their real name for a user name.

i hope they don't. although there's less stupidity in forum threads than in the comments. unless i am posting ...

I just wanted to ask about 'iqgate' which is brewing on some other forums.

Do you have a link to this? If it's what I think it is, it wouldn't be the first time AMD has been caught altering image quality for the benefit of artificially increased benchmark results.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/exploring-ati-image-quality-optimizations,1.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-570-gf110-performance,2806-5.html

Its nvidia this time, seems to be less draw distance and af in bf4, colour looks washed. I would like to hear a big review site talk about it and I would like some sli vs cf fcat again.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18679713

 

[juanrga]

AMD Fury X Memory Overclocking Unlocked In MSI Afterburner - HBM Overclocked And Benchmarked, GPU Voltage Control Coming
http://wccftech.com/unlock-memory-overclocking-amd-r9-fury/

We’ve confirmed with Robert Hallock, technical PR lead at AMD, that while the GPU-Z tool is reporting an increase in memory frequency in reality the frequency did not change. As HBM’s frequency in the Radeon R9 Fury X is determined in hardware and cannot be changed through software.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-memory-oveclocked-20/

 

[juanrga]

From my perspective. The Fury X is kinda lacking for me. I was expecting that it will outperform the 980 Ti and maybe Titan X but they released a new tech for consumers. "HBM" is new and i think amd didnt fully optimize the card before the release. I rather wait a good card that can beat out Nvidia's 980 Ti.

I heard some people say the drivers aren't updated and the card isnt that overclockable. I like the new HBM tech but it didnt meet my expectations.

The cores are overclockable, but the card has little room. Maximum increase in reviews was 75MHz or something like that, many reviews found instabilities beyond 50MHz, which gives about 5% performance increase.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1996-amd-r9-fury-x-driver-benchmark

The purpose for this test is to demystify some rumors that the Fury X would exhibit improved performance with the launch day drivers (15.15.1004), with some speculation indicating that the press drivers were less performant.

 

[Nitro192]

Neither Nvidia Maxwell nor AMD's new GPU's are that groundbreaking... The HBM is still in its early stage. As you can see from most benchmarks that doesn't help Fury X that much. Its probably because Fury X as a GPU isn't powerful enough yet to really see that much benefit from HBM. I also think that is why Nvidia sticked with GDDR5 - they knew at this point GPU's are not powerful enough yet to take advantage of HBM. Tbh I've not seen anything interesting from GPU front for a good long while.