AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Here in Australia the MSI and Gigabyte cards are listed as 3 Year and the XFX as a 2 Year. Though with our strong warranty laws I think the MSI and Gigabyte ones couldn't go lower if they wanted as their other products have 3 year, so they have no option to lower it on another card, all cards are equal in life expectancy in Australian warranty law 😀
 
Where are overclocking results for all the 980ti, 980, Titan X as well as R9 390x and Fury X comparison?
Click to expand...

Also wondering, AMD said the card can be OC-ed nicely.. we would like to see if it's true... and how much it gains..

kinda incomplete review without oc. result..
 


They didn't feel like there were any reserves for overclocking. It's mentioned when talking about the temperatures during the stress test. I doubt they ever do overclocks in a product review anyway. The sample they get could give a false good or bad impression, so rightfully avoided.

Edit: Maybe one will make it into a SBM with overclocking results. 😀
 
After reading other web article, it's seems furyX is indeed weaker from 980ti especially on lower resolution..

Don't know what driver improvement can be done, or OC capability will give..
(they haven't able to tweak at voltage for this card it seems)
edit: that's why they haven't try to go deep with O.C.

Right now it's don't make sense to pick furyX over 980ti (more over 980ti OC)..,
u need to lower the price more...

I think this time NVI really got AMD, the speculation that 980ti out so quickly
to control/force the price of furyX seems quite hit the mark...
 
I don't understand why they would just put 4GB of RAM on this thing and say it's VR ready, those are going to have dual 1080+ easy, next gen will probably be much higher, didn't really future proof it much IMO
Click to expand...

As far as I know theres no future proof gamers, the ones who pay the price for a high end card will change to the next gen card as soon as its released.

In a year you'll have a new Fury with HBM 2.0 and 14nm.
 


The Titan X couldn't have its voltage changed without modifying the BIOS until a recent update for MSI Afterburner. From what I've read, most people would agree with you that the Fury X is great at $599.99.

I'd love the Fury X at $599.99. I noticed in some benches the minimum frames were sometimes lower, even when it won the average. I'd hope a mild overclock to bring up the minimums a hair. That's all that really matters to me. (I put a Titan X with a 1080p 120Hz back in April for that reason, crazy I know!)

Anyway, all of these supposed 4K cards are really 2560x1440 cards (and super widescreen cousins). That's my next purchase as soon as I really fall in love with one. I keep getting excited, read reviews, and end up 'meh' and pull out from adding it to the cart.
 


I agree. Don't buy a dx12.x card until games are using it. Don't buy a VR headset until its a real thing. Hell, thanks to the VR hype and general pain in the butt that I'm sure it is, 3D Vision might as well be dead now. 🙁

Both camps are already taped out for 16nm afaik. What matters now is how many months and how many millions it takes to get it right. Can't wait. I'm still not excited about HBM though.... not when most games are still using low quality textures. TW3 is littered with them and only use 2048x2048 sparingly.
 


Yeah, I also hope so, the AMD statement, that this is OC dream card is make me wondering,
why go claim that when we see the OC capability for this card is very limited...
(to the point it was amusing)

IMO the new CEO seem to already learn from BD fiasco..
well Time will tells..

(guru3D promise for special furyX OC article if they can figuring it out,
at least we know some also wandering)

 


A things is AMD CPU next will be same strategy with their GPU, Zen is like GCN,
for low tier and laptop they they use small number of Zen core, and scale it up to each tier... (even server)

they don't make different arch for laptop/desktop anymore it seem.. (AFAIK)
this simplify the R&D and cut cost too, how well it will go?
again time will tells..

I do hope AMD survives, duopoly already bad enough..
now it more and more become monopoly, and the price keeps increasing..
 
I would liked to see 1080p (or 1920x1200) game results as well. These cards might be considered overkill for it, but personally I find almost all of those fps results lacking for all cards at those resoultions.
 
I was wondering about the fury and it's release date. So I ended up at the AMD website. Their website is totally uselss, there's no useful information about anything anywhere. Every time I think about buying AMD and I go to their website, MASSIVE turn off. THe single biggest thing that would make me never buy this card, besides money, is the AMD website.
 


Please go back to including a bar chart of watts, temps etc with ALL cards so we can easily compare. You just make me go read other reviews to easily see how everything stacks up (which I'd do anyway, but it should be in the article). Instead you get a bunch of info we can't really compare to anything, then say it's 12 watts lower than x. SHOW ME.

I wish you'd start using Metro Last Light REDUX, as it is more taxing I'd think with a newer engine and shows where the next rev of games will go based on the newer engine.
"rebuilt in the latest and greatest iteration of the 4A Engine for Next Gen."

Water cooler, but no OCing testing...OK...Confused. NV cards hit massive OC's easily and on air, so I would want to see why I'm having to deal with that huge block. You can easily buy OC aftermarket cards also (with better cooling, noise etc on top), so with this cooling I am kind of shocked a large part of the article wasn't testing this aspect. HBM and the chip both need testing here. If the chip isn't able to OC say so. Are we supposed to believe you had a brand new chip/memory in house and didn't check it at all?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125787&cm_re=980_ti-_-14-125-787-_-Product
190mhz OC card for $689. Considering the cheapest I can find AMD's card is $679-699 (not in stock anywhere that I know of, so not sure what a real price is yet, MSRP is not real until it sells there), you have to consider the fact that NV's card can get another 15-20% for basically the same price as AMD and no need to deal with a contraption. NV cards come with Batman Arkham Knight also ($60 right?). That game might not be worth much to some, but it's in there. Let me know when someone has the card priced at $650 IN STOCK. I waited 6 MONTHS+ for my XFX Radeon 5850 because amazon set the price at $260 and couldn't sell it there. 400+ buyers sat holding their order until amazon finally shipped cards when yields gave them a price they could finally let us have our cards for. They tried changing model numbers (AT $300) then saying the other (original) wasn't for sale so sorry about your order etc (a day 1 card model cancelled?...LOL). So again, until I see $650 it's not $650, as NOBODY has it priced under $680 yet (newegg doesn't even list pricing yet, autonotify only). It would appear EVGA and XFX are directly charging $679 and 699. I don't expect these to help AMD's quarterly report when they can't get samples to sites like anandtech for review, and card makers have to do it for the rest (they can't ship cards to their ANANDTECH shill site for 390x reviews? No anandtech review for Fury either?). Are there so few of these cards a review sample is tough to get?

Not sure there's an advantage at 4K if many games won't run there above 30fps as shown even in your own testing. These are not 4K cards until at least all current games run without mucking with settings and that clearly isn't the case. On top of that as others have noted, 95% are under 4K, with the bulk being 1080p.

A good review, just missing some major info (and easy to make comparisons with bar charts), IE OCing info for both sides. I'm pretty sure most enthusiasts (those who pay $600+ for a card especially) would want to know how OCing a water cooled card worked out. PCper couldn't get more than 10% stable, which for WATER, is UNIMPRESSIVE. I can do 20% out of the box with NV and get a free game on top for what seems to be the same price as AMD's REAL price.

For those who want to know how OCing worked out:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested/Overclocking-Pricing-and-
"That's a decent overclock for a first attempt with a brand new card and new architecture, but from the way that AMD had built up the "500 watt cooler" and the "375 watts available power" from the dual 8-pin power connectors, I was honestly expecting quite a bit more. "

Me too...Oh well, I was waiting for the shrink no matter what anyway at this point due to 4K sucking for every single card currently (and I want that in there as future-proofing if possible). I can wait until Q2 next year for massively better 16nm Finfet+ and maybe HBM2. Also Gsync might be on rev2 or who knows maybe AMD will get freesync working right by then (if it's monitor maker's faults AMD, FIX IT by forcing component choices to get approved stickers). I think the shrink will allow us 4K and lower heat/watts than these seemingly maxed out chips (die sizes are huge, watts huge).

One more quote from over at pcper after amd claiming victories over 980ti in all games:
"Well, it didn't work out that way. The Fury X is definitely an incredibly fast flagship offering from AMD, but in my testing across 7 different games and 2 resolutions for each game, the GTX 980 Ti is the faster card in nearly all instances. Only in Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light did AMD's hardware take the lead. The rest of the games, including Grand Theft Auto V, BF4, Bioshock Infinite and GRID 2, leaned towards the NVIDIA card."

Hmmf...Reading more reviews still, but so far not impressed. Again, please start using LL REDUX guys. Even GOG sells it (DRM free!).
 
Just saw sapphire says $649, but again, I don't think anyone has got one at that price until it lands in someone's hands. I didn't see that post earlier, so I think it might have just went up. I'm starting to believe the rumor of only 30K cards (if that?). Having said that, after reading hexus, pcper, techreport, hardocp, it would seem all agree AMD loses. Not by a lot, but enough that nobody called it a tie.

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11
"However, in every game the GTX 980 Ti always had the framerate advantage, especially when it came to minimum framerate which is important."

https://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/14
"However, the GeForce generally outperforms the Fury X across our suite of games—by under 10%, or four FPS, on average. "

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb/?page=15
"Nvidia's pre-emptive launch of the GeForce GTX 980 Ti uses a more efficient core and regular GDDR5 memory to achieve benchmark performances that are, in our opinion, a little better than the latest Radeon's, perhaps helped in small part by having a larger framebuffer. Partner GTX 980 Ti's are faster still and overclock better than Fury X."

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-video-card-review_167134/13
"We didn’t test nearly as many titles since we don’t have automated testing like NVIDIA and AMD, but our manual testing testing showed that the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X was slightly slower than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti in most of the benchmarks despite performing significantly faster than the Radeon R9 390X 8GB video card in all the benchmarks. "

OCing at ones that did it not impressive either. IE 7.5% at legit, 10% pcper etc. Not impressive for WATER. Look at the massive ocing at legit on NV for a direct OC to OC comparison vs. FURY. Again, NV hands down. 980ti taking out 295x2 in a few things...LOL. OUCH. Never mind the smacking it gave FURY Oc'ed. Double ouch. Reading legitreviews was pretty much brutal and metro wasn't even showing the OC model (fury OC couldn't catch their regular 980ti, which was already 1076 though, the OC model hit 1300+). Massive victories for NV when showing the 1311mhz OC card in the charts. Multiple times fury OC doesn't catch the default clock speeds of their 980ti.

I could go on, but you should get the point. I'll read more tomorrow (it's late), but I'm not in a hurry now. Toms seems way too nice 😉 HBM wasn't needed and I think for the benefit of a buzzword, will kill AMD chances of profits along with that cooler they used. For an extra billion transistors I expected a full clean sweep.
 
People are forgetting that the Fury-X is running on BETA drivers (ie - the drivers are still immature). Once the drivers have been finalised, then we will see improved performance. Also people are forgetting that under DX12, the 290X outperformed the 980gtx by a massive 33% in draw calls. Once windows 10 is released (with DX12), we will see a massive boost in Hawaii and FIJI performance. More so than the NVidia gpu's. I think the AMD gpu's share the same principle as the FX cpu's (focus on multi-threading capacity) but it was the immature API's that prevented these gpu's from showing their full ability. Also, here in uk the Fury-X is selling for £510 at overclockers. That is £40 cheaper than the cheapest 980Ti. Yet another compelling reason to buy the Fury-X over the 980Ti.
 
Well, this is interesting, and I'm glad AMD's caught up with the 980Ti at least, and the small form factor is very interesting, but I'm more interested in the smaller and more power-efficient Nano.

That said, I'm not the kind of person who buys a card that costs more than a console, so I probably would never get this or the 980 Ti, but I'm hoping AMD comes out with a full Tonga with 384-bit ram in a 380x or something soon.

That would be what I'd like to buy. As long as Nvidia has 70%+ marketshare, I'll keep buying AMD to even the odds. Don't get me wrong, I like Nvidia and love EVGA's take on Nvidia cards, I just want competition to keep on going.

So, I buy AMD Processors and GPU's whenever I can, especially when the price/performance ratio fits my needs. I feel like the 4gb 380 right now is in a good place, and like I said before, I'd love to see a 380x.
 
Im sick of hearing all this 1440p stuff. Here in australia its only newly available in the past 6months and costs over $5-600. I just purchased a 144hz 1080p last year and paid over $400 for it. Im not going to upgrade my monitor to enjoy these new cards out......980, 980ti, titan, fury cards.
being a amd fan and always used their cards, i dont see the option or results for 1080p. I know there are cheaper cards to handle it but they're all on old architecture and new games wont support older cards due to higher demanding details .
are these new fury cards ruling out dvi-d to obtain 144hz???
 
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.
Click to expand...

And yet you're here. Commenting and everything. Looking for attention? You're making a bunch of serious accusations here without any proof of any kind that is trustworthy itself. You should no longer be welcome here at THW. I vote that they revoke your profile.
 


This is EXACTLY what the AMD fans should understand here, instead of voting down people who say they are disappointed. Most of us are NOT married to Nvidia, but if AMD cannot get us excited, than why would we switch to AMD?

The buying equation is simple:
-for GPU if the performance is the same, price is the same, power consumption is the same, than buy Nvidia, because the drivers are a bit better (especially Linux drivers) and it is known to bribe the game developers to optimize games to their likings

-for CPU, if the feature set is the same, price is the same, performance is the same, power consumption is the same, buy Intel because of the MKL math kernel libraries.
I have recently bought an AMD FX 8350 and an AMD board despite Intel offering superior performance, just because I got the IOMMU feature set for KVM and VMware, and for the same price from Intel I would have not gotten that. This is why I opened my wallet to AMD, and they have to do the same in the GPU front.


Wake up AMD fans, and realize, that AMD would be nowhere if their 486 and Athlons would have not been BETTER than the Intel 486 and P3/P4 competition back in the days. If they would have offered the same performance for the same price, than nobody would have bought them!
This is why AMD has to either beat a little Nvidia in performance, or offer a cheaper product with the same performance. Period.

 
Only 4GB memory, hmmm. So, for multi-monitor, crossfire setup, you'll need to find a home for 2 or more of those water bricks?

You either come to the party first or bring a bunch of extra favors. A virtual tie in performance/temp/power in a new (and not necessarily better) ergonomic package doesn't meet the hopes.

Prior to my 980, I had mostly AMDs. It still looks like they're playing catch-up.
 
AMD where to start
You made all this hype about HBM and it did almost nothing for you. It did allow you to use a re-branded GPU and squeeze every drop out of it. However its water cooled and we are comparing it to a stock air cooled 980ti. Some bench marks say you have a small edge at 4k okay where is HDMI 2.0?? How do you game at 60 hz???
What happen to your drivers?? I hope you didn't invest to much in HBM.

I was loyal to Radeon but now im going green. I am going to wait till next year when pascal comes out. I might consider the dual fury x but NO HDMI 2.0 and poor driver support. I would love to get a 295x2 for the price, but No HDMI 2.0 and poor drivers for xfire.

I would hate to see AMD go out of business but Nvidia are smarter and better.
Can i write your eulogy????
 
Anyway, its too bad the Fury X has the water cooler slapped on. Ultimately, if it were a 10% performance improvement across the board over anything else available, I still wouldn't want to deal with that radiator, and certainly not two of them in a crossfire scenario. ... Anyone interested in that type of water cooling solution, might already have it for their CPU and so already locked in to that, and scratching their heads, looking over their cases, and trying to come up with a working solution while also keeping aesthetics in mind. Good luck 😉
Click to expand...

Indeed, I don't think the review dealt with this remotely enough, and I notice all of those commenting who are praising this card ignore this issue entirely. In reality the practicality of fitting this unit is probably a lot more important than AMD fans will admit, especially for any notion of CF.


Both bare great cards (980Ti and Fury X), the decision-making factor comes down to whether the buyer is an AMD or Nvidia guy.
Click to expand...

Nope, it comes down to whether you can fit the wc in your case, whether you plan on being able to add a 2nd in the future, and whether you have hope that AMD will stop producing CF-borked drivers (is DX9 CF fixed yet?).

I'd hoped the Fury X would be at least some degree faster than the 980 Ti in all scenarios, or have a decent price advantage, enough to force NVIDIA to drop its prices on the entire 970/980/980 Ti range, but it fails on both counts. And even if these failings had been avoided, the issues involved in dealing with that wc will in the end be a turn off for many I believe. As someone else said, it's obvious now why NV rolled out the 980 Ti when it did, because it does indeed completely take the wind out of the Fury X's sails.

Here in the UK, the Fury X is approx. 550 UKP, but one can buy an MSI 1178MHz 980 Ti for 600 (ref. model is the same at ~550); I'd go for the 980 Ti every time (easier to fit, better drivers, no issues adding another for SLI, etc.)

I *want* AMD to do better because we need the competition, but they're not there yet. Perhaps the Nano can make some noise instead.
 
I don't want to nitpick too much here as an AMD fan. I get that 980ti has the win, but I think people need more knowledge on tweaking for AMD cards. For instance you used 4x MSAA in GTA-V which was well known to be a huge performance hit for AMD cards.

AMD fans need to take all reviews of video cards with a grain of salt because of the proprietary gameworks offerings. I'll admit gameworks makes games look better but for whatever reason AMD doesn't seem to address them until a week or so after a game comes out...or not at all. Things like MSAA aren't super pretty anyways so they are usually replaced with another form of AA.
 

Fury X is not a rebrand. Aside from the re-design to switch from GDDR5 to HBM, it also has 45% more shaders than the R9-290X - 4096 vs 2816.

As far as investment in HBM goes, Nvidia will start going HBM next year too. With 14nm enabling about four times the GPU power per square centimeter, GDDR5 is not going to be able to keep up with GPU bandwidth requirements for much longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom