AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review

Not open for further replies.


May 31, 2015
very nice just what i wanted since i dont to nvidia for personal reasons, now i never buy into hype either i tend to wait it out fofr revisions but this one is going to be my 2 year card,.since i only game at 2k and d dalarererady havefrereesyync monitoto


same here, disappointment... guru3d has calculated tdp around 300w for this card. not good at all.. 4096-bit and this is it? once nvidia goes HBM i don't know how AMD will be able to compete with it.


It is interesting to see the effect of the high bandwidth memory on resolution scaling. For instance if you take a look at just the average frame rates for the 980ti and the Fury X for each game and then average the results you find that at 1440 the Fury X is slightly slower overall but nearly the same at about -1.3%. Yet in every single game's case the 4k results show an improvement in the performance gap for the Fury X averaging out at 4.7% faster.

At least it shows some promise for the future and decent competition now rather than being a flop like Bulldozer.


Even though the performance isn't as good as I expected the temps/noise is suprisingly good, especially for a AMD card and with better drivers and overclocking the card can probably be pushed alot more and we can see a significant increase in game performance.


Jun 24, 2015
Where the hell are the Overclocked benchmarks?

Who buys a GPU for more than 500$ and doesn't overclock it?

I am very curious. Is there any good reasoning behind you not including any overclocked GPU results in your benchmark?

We all know Maxwell 980ti OCs 1500Mhz quite easily on air, same with 980.

Can we please get some figures how far can newest iteration of GCN go? I am intrigued that you didn't even try to OC HBM memory either.

What's going on here? AMD paying loads of cash? Or is the software for overclocking GPUs not available, and furthermore, your old results of overclocking Maxwell and r9 390x are gone as well which is why you can't show them to us?


Jul 24, 2013
I agree "We have to wonder if the company stopped just short of the gold, though. More speed, a lower price, some sort of game bundle—it could have gone in several directions, really, to convince enthusiasts that Fury X is the better buy."

AMD should have nudged a bit more with this to really take the gold. I love and will get one on my slight dislike for NVIDIA's business tactics and morals, but I don't think many people will be converts with somewhat equal performance.

With that said there is catalyst 15.15 which was not used in these tests which added a big jump for the 390 cards in Witcher 3...
I would like to have seen some GPGPU testing.
I wonder if Gigabyte will make an air-cooled version with their WF3 cooler.
For me, I don't think it is a matter of being disappointed, so much as realizing I am not in this card's target market. I recommend and/or build systems that are considerably smaller, whether in terms of physical size or budget. I do like what HBM appears to mean for power use though. As that technology filters down the lineup, it might make a big difference.


Jan 30, 2009
I am wondering whether AMD will finally release a driver at least for this new architecture, which actually works on Linux?
It is a shame that if you run a Linux KVM machine, and you need to restart or shut down the VM, you have to kill the whole host. That just should not happen.
Hack, even on the bare metal Linux machine the AMD drivers are just not cutting the mustard.

Because of driver issues I have to stick to Nvidia, since their drivers at least kind-of work. Hope that the newer AMD releases will force Nvidia to decrease the price on their 970 and 980 series.

Anyway, good job on the Fury X, though this water cooling is a bit sucky. They should give the buyer the option to use their custom water loops without loosing the warranty.

Considering this is just for the high end (which I cannot afford) I am afraid that the introduction of this card will not change the pricing in the middle class cards in the price range of 300 Euros...


Apr 29, 2015
As someone who is not a fanboy of either side of this isle, and someone who has held off starting a new build to replace this 8 year old dinosaur I'm typing on for news of these new releases, I have to say, I'm disappointed.

I guess in my heart I have been rooting for the underdog, hoping AMD would come out with some pizzazz. Instead it doesn't really. It really feels like it was just looking to get "on par" and that's kind of sad really, "just good enough". Someone earlier in these comments mention it wouldn't be enough for any converts, and while I had no prior allegiances, I would have to agree.

I will state this as my reason for probably finalizing this new build of mine with an 980Ti: all of my research has pointed to more reliable driver support from Nvidia and as someone who is by no means a hardcore gamer, when I want to play a game I want to do so reliably.

And since I am not really a 4k gamer, I guess this round for my purchase goes to the 980Ti.

I really had hoped.


So AMD have managed to match the 980ti by using hbm and 40w more power. Imagine if the 980ti had hbm and more power, it would wipe the floor with fury x.

Most sites are also reportingvery poor overlooking of the fury x, around 5% despite the thermal headroom, whereas 980ti can easily be oveclocked 25%.

Add to that a rather limiting 4gb vram vs 6gb for 980ti, I'm rather unimpressed.

I'm afraid when I sell my R9-290, I'll be going green next.

(also annoyed when they rebranded 290-390, they slapped on another $150 here in Oz. )
Not open for further replies.