AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review

[obababoy]

How did hardocp manage to have such drastically different results. What is going on here?

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYqy-0ay58E

 

[Dagstar]

Glad to see some neck and neck competition. I breathed a sigh of relief as there's a 980 Ti in the mail with my name on it.

 

[redgarl]

Size, cooling power consumption, OC and better 4k focus. I would buy one over the TI.

 

[Vlad Rose]

How did hardocp manage to have such drastically different results. What is going on here?

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYqy-0ay58E

Different settings, some different titles. Mostly GameWorks titles which are notoriously known to not work well on AMD cards

 

[redgarl]

By the way, AA ativation is turning off CF in The Witcher 3. I told you this before guys.

Also, I want to see benches at 4k without AA... real world situation, at 4k AA is useless and only result in drop in performances especially on a 58 inch TV.

 

[10tacle]

Not overly impressed, but some competition is better than none at all. Nobody wins when competition is lacking or absent (and the latter almost always results in the long run with enough of the former).

With that said, two observations no matter what results from different sites are obtained:

1) Contrary to popular belief, 4GB VRAM is apparently enough for the rest of the year and likely into next year. [breathes sigh of relief with effectively 3.5GB SLI cards]

2) AMD needs to step it up. Nobody wins in the long term when competition is lacking. And for many, this is where it's at:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfwatt_2560.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfdollar_2560.gif

 

[10tacle]

Also, I want to see benches at 4k without AA... real world situation, at 4k AA is useless and only result in drop in performances especially on a 58 inch TV.

+1. It's the same with running 8xAA at 1440p when at best 4xAA is the sweet spot for performance/quality (or using in-game 2xMSAA and turn FXAA on in Nvidia control panel like I do for squeezing out a few more frames for an effective 4xAA).

 

[kenderkenobi]

How did hardocp manage to have such drastically different results. What is going on here?

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYqy-0ay58E

Different settings, some different titles. Mostly GameWorks titles which are notoriously known to not work well on AMD cards

Uhh, appears to me Toms and [H]ard did the same titles, Tom' covered one or two more.

Try again?

 

[ern88]

Where is all the overclocking room at. Since that is what AMD fed us at E3?

 

[MasterMace]

I am satisfied in saying neither company is ready for 2160p this generation, as both cards miss 30fps in half the games with their most expensive card.

Regarding this card, I'm eager to see how hot the air cooled one gets and if it gets throttled. The card sucks down power like crazy though. The 980ti under stress maxes at 296w, averages 255w. This one plows all the way to 450w max, 350w average! This does not bode well for AMD. What more, they still don't have a new architecture to address it.

 

[Pei-chen]

Everything seems the same with TechPowerUp and Guru3D's review except power consumption. The other 2 review sites have Fury X using 40W more power than 980 Ti.

Overall, a meh product. Stacked memory, 8.9 billion transistor and water cooled to match 980 Ti while using more power even though the memory is suppose to save like 30W.

 

[ern88]

My question is. Where is all the overclocking abilities at. Since that is what AMD fed us at E3. Or do we have to wait for an update to CCC for it to work better with Fury? Why have a liquid cooler if it can't be taken advantage of?

 

[rgd1101]

How did hardocp manage to have such drastically different results. What is going on here?

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11#.VYqy-0ay58E

Different settings, some different titles. Mostly GameWorks titles which are notoriously known to not work well on AMD cards

I dislike how they comparison, sometime they use different settings on the same chart which is kind of misleading.
Hothardware.com have FuryX winning in the 1440p in most/all title. [strike]Although they didn't post the drivers version.[/strike] found it 15.5 beta vs 15.4 beta on Toms

 

[toddybody]

Despite being on "team green" for a while now, I had incredible hopes for AMD's r9 Fury X.

HBM memory, AMD's last gen support of bridge-less CXF, all the work they've put into reducing frame latency (def evident now), etc...all this had me hoping for a card that soundly walloped the 980ti at a shared price point.

No getting around the fact that it's a beast GPU...but Im sorry to say the performance has me depressed IMO, AMD needed a 15-20% frame gain over the 980ti across the board to emerge victorious...now, it feels like the often "too little too late" from AMD.

 

[rgd1101]

I am satisfied in saying neither company is ready for 2160p this generation, as both cards miss 30fps in half the games with their most expensive card.

Regarding this card, I'm eager to see how hot the air cooled one gets and if it gets throttled. The card sucks down power like crazy though. The 980ti under stress maxes at 296w, averages 255w. This one plows all the way to 450w max, 350w average! This does not bode well for AMD. What more, they still don't have a new architecture to address it.

Probably have to wait for the next gen for ultra settings in 4k.

 

[rgd1101]

Despite being on "team green" for a while now, I had incredible hopes for AMD's r9 Fury X.

HBM memory, AMD's last gen support of bridge-less CXF, all the work they've put into reducing frame latency (def evident now), etc...all this had me hoping for a card that soundly walloped the 980ti at a shared price point.

No getting around the fact that it's a beast GPU...but Im sorry to say the performance has me depressed IMO, AMD needed a 15-20% frame gain over the 980ti across the board to emerge victorious...now, it feels like the often "too little too late" from AMD.

I wonder what if they just have intel make their chip in 22nm. Since intel is moving to 14nm, sure they have extra capacity in 22nm.

 

[ohim]

Why the hell is everybody disappointed ?

The price is good, the performance is good, the temperature is very good ( see 980ti / titan-x temps), the noise is good, power consumption is good. So what`s your problem ? I`ve seen some comments about Nvidia going HBM ... well they aren`t on HBM atm, why do you compare this to a future nvidia product that we don`t even know about ? Compare the present not the future. You can never please some people.

 

[shaun_shaun]

jeez toms, pictures taking ages to load.. your slideshow system is the worst I've seen..

 

[rgd1101]

Why the hell is everybody disappointed ?

The price is good, the performance is good, the temperature is very good ( see 980ti / titan-x temps), the noise is good, power consumption is good. So what`s your problem ? I`ve seen some comments about Nvidia going HBM ... well they aren`t on HBM atm, why do you compare this to a future nvidia product that we don`t even know about ? Compare the present not the future. You can never please some people.

performance match 980ti, temp is good for water cooling, noisier, power consumption is worse.
Not disappointed, just hope it was better.

 

[obababoy]

Why the hell is everybody disappointed ?

The price is good, the performance is good, the temperature is very good ( see 980ti / titan-x temps), the noise is good, power consumption is good. So what`s your problem ? I`ve seen some comments about Nvidia going HBM ... well they aren`t on HBM atm, why do you compare this to a future nvidia product that we don`t even know about ? Compare the present not the future. You can never please some people.

I agree but the problem is AMD should have made a stronger stance coming out. slightly cheaper price, bundled game, higher clocks etc etc. There is no doubt the product is great and the price/performance is close to the 980ti, but alot of people are going to stay where they are at unless AMD really shows as the better deal.

 

[obababoy]

performance match 980ti, temp is good for water cooling, noisier, power consumption is worse.
Not disappointed, just hope it was better.

Whah? It is not noisier and even so AMD said they will fix the slight whine for the retail versions. (the issue only happens at a normal fan profile)

 

[dragonsqrrl]

Once again. tomshardware is showing off it pact with AMD with inflated results. Everywhere else has the Fury X losing miserably to the 980 ti. Then you come to tomshardware and see it beating the 980ti and the Titan X. They even went as far as faking the power consumption to be lower than the 980 ti, when in fact it is much higher.

I have no respect for Tomshardware. They do this every card generation. They falsifiy numbers putting AMD ahead and fanboys eat it up. These results are all false. AMD should be ashamed. tomshardware is a bunch of dirty cops.

I thought Tom's was bought out by Nvidia just a few reviews ago?

 

[Aspiring techie]

Nice, AMD is back to Titan level performance. This is good news for them. All they need to do is to update their (crappy) drivers to something decent, then they'll be at the top of the single-gpu game.
Nice to see great performance at 4k. It shows that HBM will make decent difference, and that 4GB is enough for now.

 

[ykki]

Page 9, 6th para "GPU Tach " is written. Doesn't Tom's mean "GPU Tech" instead?

 

[red77star]

None of these cards are worth buying it, including 980, 980ti, Fury. They are too expensive for very little gain especially if you do 1080p gaming only. I would say Crossfire 290x + 1440p is perfect spot.