AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review

[tomsreader]

Go read the HardOCP review and see if you still feel the same.

I still feel the same. Why? Because I don't see 980 (which is more expensive yet just a bit faster) and 970 (which is 290x's direct competitor) tested

 

[tomc100]

not as good as i thought

It's probably because you're comparing it to the 980 Ti when you should be comparing it to the 290x and GTX 980. The problem was that AMD took too long to release the Fury X because of implementation of new technology and they wanted it less than 28 nm. Well, 20 nm didn't work so they went back to 28 nm. Word got out about the performance so Nvidia tried to spoil AMD's party by releasing the 980 Ti. Had the Fury X come out early, every tech website would be praising the Fury X and everyone on these comment boards would proclaim it as the next coming of Christ. Everyone criticizing AMD should be thanking them for forcing Nvidia to release the 980 Ti and reduce prices. Without AMD, Nvidia would still be selling the GTX 980 and Titan X at bloated prices. Also, AMD is the company that usually moves technology forward. They were the first to use GDDR5 and the first to use HBM which Nvidia will incorporate too. When the Fury Pro comes out and beats the GTX 970, I'm sure Nvidia will magically come out with the GTX 975. Nvidia is a POS company and their gameworks is garbage.

 

[RedJaron]

I bought a (single) 7790 in May 2013 and couldn't put it to use until February 2014 due to unstable drivers, that's why people rant about AMD drivers.

Uh huh, a single experience, and that means everything of theirs is crap. Got it. Strange that if this was such a huge and universal problem like you want to make it out to be that none of the reviews I've read on that card mention it. Oh sure, I've seen people post problems with their individual cards, but that happens which every make and model.

Hey, I can do anecdotal too. I have a 6870, now R9 280, no problems with either, so that must mean they're all great, right? Have a TNT2 and GT 8800 as well, never had a problem.

Everyone may have hiccups here and there, but spreading FUD is not the way to go.

 

[quilciri]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=79&v=xhVo7yPjQvE

I still love AMD, but lol.

 

[InvalidError]

not as good as i thought

It's probably because you're comparing it to the 980 Ti when you should be comparing it to the 290x and GTX 980.

Fury X has significantly better specs than the 980Ti across the board except for ROPs where it is 33% worse, so the disappointment with Fury X barely matching the 980Ti quite possibly due to an ROP bottleneck is understandable.

 

[Kawi6rr]

Great card can't wait to pick one up! Thanks AMD for putting out a great product.

 

[littleleo]

Can you imagine someone with a AMD FX-9370 or a FX-9590 and he wants to CrossFire 2 R9 FuryX cards. He will have fun positioning all the radiators. He might have to opt for a cooling tower. And they say the 60s are dead, lol.

 

[Giroro]

It will take a while for AMD to improve the driver to maximize the potential of Fury X. It might be too premature to call it a day. AMD also need to release their 8GB Fury X2 soon to release all this new architecture's power. Fury X is now being held back by some factors. It's a good direction for Radeon product line.

8GB of HBM is technically impossible right now - and when it is possible on HBM2 a lot will have changed, including moving the GPU to a smaller node.

 

[childofthekorn]

And I really don't get people perpetually ranting on AMD's drivers

I bought a (single) 7790 in May 2013 and couldn't put it to use until February 2014 due to unstable drivers, that's why people rant about AMD drivers.

What issues were you seeing?

 

[3ogdy]

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.

Price is NOT good for an AMD card. First, it doesn't beat the 980Ti - the nVidia card beats it. It sports less VRAM. It ahs a higher bandwidth that's not put to good use (high bandwidth ahs typically been an AMD selling point - the thing is it's usually high(ly) unused bandwidth since nVidia gets better results with much lower bandwidth - it's just an AMD gimmick).

All this blablabla about HBM, Fury X, Fury Y, Fury Z, new card and all that and when it shows up, what do we see ? An overpriced card (for being an AMD one) that runs hot, requires liquid cooling, is noisier than nVidia's blower-based cooler (mind you blowers are noisier than actual fans). It requires good case airflow since the heat is dissipated in your PC case.

They lied to us regarding overclocking - and it's under liquid cooling, mind you.


What do we get? A liquid cooled card that can't beat an aircooled one for the same price?
The size is not an advantage either - without the liquid cooling system the card wouldn't work , but fanbois (spelled that right) will claim the card is oh so much shorter as if it would work without its cooling.


The review itself states performance is not impressive, price is comparable...and you know the rest.

Question is where are your reasons for buying this card? This time around AMD has gone too far with their issues - I know 290X card sucked big time for being so noisy and even suffered performance degradation due to insufficient cooling , but this is pushing it too far and for $650, mind you. I wouldn't even pay $500 to begin with.

 

[jimmysmitty]

^It wont help if NVidia does drop the prices on their 980Ti either. At least that is the rumor although I don't see that they have to.

 

[Vlad Rose]

Tom's was generous compared to HardOCP, I think the most telling factor is the AMD fan site Anandtech didn't post a review at all. They must be working out a way to make it appear as a win for AMD, good luck with that.

LMFAO!!!!

Anandtech an AMD fan site? It used to be an Intel fan site. I guess it changes from time to time.

And according to this article, I guess Anandtech used to be a Nvidia site... lol

http://techsoda.com/anandtech-forum-moderators-biased-corrupt/13/

I really feel sorry for some of these review sites sometimes for having to keep the peace whenever something new comes out and insanity ensues.

 

[littleleo]

Biggest travesty is learning Toms owns Anandtech now. And here I thought Anand was doing well enough to not have to be the forefront of article writing. In regards to this card, I wasn't expecting much overclocking room at all so even 8% is pretty surprising. I'm also glad they pit the card against non-factory oc'd devices for comparison. More interested in hearing about the R9 nano.

Sigh...we don't own AT. Our parent company does. And Anand retired.

No wonder it looks so different. And some of the articles are kind of ...eh. Tell them less is more if they don't have any real information to give.

Biggest travesty is learning Toms owns Anandtech now. And here I thought Anand was doing well enough to not have to be the forefront of article writing. In regards to this card, I wasn't expecting much overclocking room at all so even 8% is pretty surprising. I'm also glad they pit the card against non-factory oc'd devices for comparison. More interested in hearing about the R9 nano.

Sigh...we don't own AT. Our parent company does. And Anand retired.

just lol... I can only imagine how some of the comments make you feel. Do I educate or ignore? Is it worth the time? I feel for ya.

A few comments back I quoted someone talking about the images. Is it the backend security against data mining, just protection from people directly linking images? They don't always load, and pages have been reloaded many, many times to look at a pretty graph. 😉

Biggest travesty is learning Toms owns Anandtech now. And here I thought Anand was doing well enough to not have to be the forefront of article writing. In regards to this card, I wasn't expecting much overclocking room at all so even 8% is pretty surprising. I'm also glad they pit the card against non-factory oc'd devices for comparison. More interested in hearing about the R9 nano.

Sigh...we don't own AT. Our parent company does. And Anand retired.

just lol... I can only imagine how some of the comments make you feel. Do I educate or ignore? Is it worth the time? I feel for ya.

A few comments back I quoted someone talking about the images. Is it the backend security against data mining, just protection from people directly linking images? They don't always load, and pages have been reloaded many, many times to look at a pretty graph. 😉

Biggest travesty is learning Toms owns Anandtech now. And here I thought Anand was doing well enough to not have to be the forefront of article writing. In regards to this card, I wasn't expecting much overclocking room at all so even 8% is pretty surprising. I'm also glad they pit the card against non-factory oc'd devices for comparison. More interested in hearing about the R9 nano.

Sigh...we don't own AT. Our parent company does. And Anand retired.

just lol... I can only imagine how some of the comments make you feel. Do I educate or ignore? Is it worth the time? I feel for ya.

A few comments back I quoted someone talking about the images. Is it the backend security against data mining, just protection from people directly linking images? They don't always load, and pages have been reloaded many, many times to look at a pretty graph. 😉

The Tom's Hardware platform has a long history, which is another way of saying it's gotten a bit long in the tooth. We're doing an across the board (meaning our parent company) platform migration right now, which will lead to better performance, but also better features. Some of the image albums and other modules (commerce blocks, for example) that we use weren't necessarily intended for the kind of scale we have on Tom's Hardware, or were built for experimental purposes. That's a long winded way of saying: we're working on it.

As for responding to all of the comments, I think everyone here does a good job of debating the facts and the merits and down-voting those out of line. To those who thought, last week, we were biased towards (and perhaps paid by) Nvidia, and to those of you who this week believe we are in the pocket of AMD: I wish you'd organize yourselves, meet out on a field somewhere, and decide amongst yourselves which it is and get back to us on the final verdict.

As for AnandTech, our parent company has left editorial content and content direction untouched and uninfluenced in the 6 months it has been under our roof.

But no mater how badly Green team beat the Red team you just say it was too close to call. <JK> Sorry I should post that on AnandTech ROFL!! It seem most of the posters there have a strong affinity for AMD.

Actually good healthy competition between AMD and NVIDIA, and AMD and Intel is good for us the consumer. I remember when I used to sell way more AMD CPUs then Intel CPUs. Heck every computer in my house was AMD at one point. It seems that AMD's acquisition of ATI really hurt AMD especially in the CPU field. Ever since that happened it seem their CPUs have fallen behind, and their APUs so far have not be impressive, and not suitable for the gaming segment at all. AMD way over paid for ATI, and I think it really hurt them tremendously and that debt caused layoffs of talent, and slowed down CPU product development. Anyone seen a new AMD chipset lately, or one that supports DDR4?

 

[littleleo]

Great card can't wait to pick one up! Thanks AMD for putting out a great product.

That's the spirit you should get 2 and crossfire them!

 

[Ra_V_en]

Now we know why Lisa Su was "calm but confident". A bit of chip tweaking here and there, new memory subsystem and they are still in the business. I as a customer am very glad they managed to bounce from the bottom, good stuff and good prices coming around, especially with further Nano model. Nothing to be disappointed about at all, they manage to show they still can compete with a spare change of nVidia's budget. I would call it a small victory and i bet AMD team feel the same right now.

 

[Martell1977]

There is a lot of negativity on here and other sites, but if you consider the details, this card is not bad.
Many complain that HBM is a disappointment, but they should remember that HBM is doing at 500mhz what GDDR5 is at 7ghz, how is that not impressive?
As for the GPU, I am starting to think AMD tuned it to get into a certain power envelope, but i also think that overclocking will be more complicated and will be explained. AMD built in dual BIOS with a switch, if not for custom BIOS, why else would they have done that, how often does a GPU have it's BIOS get corrupted when it's left alone?

Personally, I think this was a decent launch, trading blows with the 980ti and even the Titan X, yes the 980ti has more wins, but I think/hope, AMD has something up their sleeves.

Try to stay positive!

 

[3ogdy]

At this price point I really think this card is going to be a fail for AMD and I really hate it. People are going to have a hard time doing a crossfire setup in smaller cases. The memory will be insufficient for a lot of 4K titles with eye candy turned on and that is what they are marketing this card for. It really needs more memory. I would have loved to see what the OC potential of this card vs the 980 Ti is in this article. I wonder what the aftermarket card makers can do with it and what more mature drivers can do.

That's correct. I was looking up to it, but the Fury X is a huge fail. I don't even understand the ones who are interested in it. Seriously now, it's nothing but disadvantages across the board when compared to nVidia's 980Ti and all while consuming MORE POWER (NOT less, as some of them fools keep claiming around here)

 

[3ogdy]

There is a lot of negativity on here and other sites, but if you consider the details, this card is not bad.
Many complain that HBM is a disappointment, but they should remember that HBM is doing at 500mhz what GDDR5 is at 7ghz, how is that not impressive?
As for the GPU, I am starting to think AMD tuned it to get into a certain power envelope, but i also think that overclocking will be more complicated and will be explained. AMD built in dual BIOS with a switch, if not for custom BIOS, why else would they have done that, how often does a GPU have it's BIOS get corrupted when it's left alone?

Personally, I think this was a decent launch, trading blows with the 980ti and even the Titan X, yes the 980ti has more wins, but I think/hope, AMD has something up their sleeves.

Try to stay positive!

Let's set the record straight - I'll be positive once they don't ask for money from my wallet for an underperforming, overhyped product. Full stop.

What details do you want to consider? They are selling it for the same price of a 980Ti, right?
It's noisier, more power hungry, slower, priced nearly identically as the 980Ti is and...
It is outperformed by a 980Ti, right?

It is more (moar, in AMD talk) complex than the 980Ti, more advanced than the 980Ti, yet it gets beaten even with HBM and all the features AMD has been working on and showing off with claiming to be "first-to-market" to have them?
What's the point of all these features when you're beaten by a card nVidia had on the market for quite some time before you (Titan X for $650 released right before the Fury X).

First off, who cares what clocks HBM is running at? Who cares if GDDR5 is at 700GHz and HBM is at 0.5Hz?
Who cares if the card has first generation HBM and therefore is limited to 4GB? Is it any better than the nVidia alternative for the same money? NO? Then off you eff. Especially being AMD - who usually trade many things for performance (noise, cooling, drivers etc etc)

WHO CARES? All our wallets care about is performance per dollar - at which point, AMD has nothing to beat nVidia at the exact same price. It has something worse.

It does not matter what power envelope AMD tune it to get into - in that power envelope they are selling a slower product WHICH MOREOVER REQUIRES LIQUID COOLING when the competition doesn't.

AMD built in a dual-BIOS switch....on HD6000 cards too... what do you think a custom BIOS will get you? 50% more performance? Mind you the card is already watercooled in order to run like that because AMD can't get a freaking blower done right. (check the stock cooling on the 290X)
A custom BIOS won't make it soundly beat the 980Ti in conditions and it won't bring the Fury X price down either, so?


Oh and by the way, all you stating "wait, wait wait....it will get much better with a driver update - what do you think AMD has been working on with the Omega drivers? Performance optimizations for the HD4000 series cards or what?

 

[Martell1977]

Seriously now, it's nothing but disadvantages across the board when compared to nVidia's 980Ti and all while consuming MORE POWER (NOT less, as some of them fools keep claiming around here)

You might want to read this page of the review again...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-7.html

Fury X consumes less power except when in a unrealistic all out stress test.

 

[3ogdy]

Seriously now, it's nothing but disadvantages across the board when compared to nVidia's 980Ti and all while consuming MORE POWER (NOT less, as some of them fools keep claiming around here)

You might want to read this page of the review again...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-7.html

Fury X consumes less power except when in a unrealistic all out stress test.

Other reviews clearly claimed Fury X using more power in CERTAIN context and "POWER USAGE ON PAR" with the 980Ti. What for?

Why didn't we get a Fury X to 980Ti comparison? Well, because the card is clearly underperforming. They only stated 12W lower than the 980Ti. Oh wow.
When did you say the Fury X consumes less power than the 980Ti? Every time except when in an unrealistic all out stress test?
Which one is that unrealistic one?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/29.html
There's not ONE example where the Fury X is using LESS power than the 980Ti

Again:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/06/24/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/11
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/13
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested/Power-Consumption-and-Sou
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,10.html
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb/?page=13
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test?page=13

Whose power consumption is lower? Surprisingly (not) ....nVidia's!
I'm sure all these reviews must've been written by some (curse) idiots who barely knew what they were doing.
But AMD fanbois will keep praising the GPU as being incredible. (even for the price - which is obviously not)

 

[Martell1977]

Let's set the record straight - I'll be positive once they don't ask for money from my wallet for an underperforming, overhyped product. Full stop.

What details do you want to consider? They are selling it for the same price of a 980Ti, right?
It's noisier, more power hungry, slower, priced nearly identically as the 980Ti is and...
It is outperformed by a 980Ti, right?

It is more (moar, in AMD talk) complex than the 980Ti, more advanced than the 980Ti, yet it gets beaten even with HBM and all the features AMD has been working on and showing off with claiming to be "first-to-market" to have them?
What's the point of all these features when you're beaten by a card nVidia had on the market for quite some time before you (Titan X for $650 released right before the Fury X).

First off, who cares what clocks HBM is running at? Who cares if GDDR5 is at 700GHz and HBM is at 0.5Hz?
Who cares if the card has first generation HBM and therefore is limited to 4GB? Is it any better than the nVidia alternative for the same money? NO? Then off you eff. Especially being AMD - who usually trade many things for performance (noise, cooling, drivers etc etc)

WHO CARES? All our wallets care about is performance per dollar - at which point, AMD has nothing to beat nVidia at the exact same price. It has something worse.

It does not matter what power envelope AMD tune it to get into - in that power envelope they are selling a slower product WHICH MOREOVER REQUIRES LIQUID COOLING when the competition doesn't.

AMD built in a dual-BIOS switch....on HD6000 cards too... what do you think a custom BIOS will get you? 50% more performance? Mind you the card is already watercooled in order to run like that because AMD can't get a freaking blower done right. (check the stock cooling on the 290X)
A custom BIOS won't make it soundly beat the 980Ti in conditions and it won't bring the Fury X price down either, so?


Oh and by the way, all you stating "wait, wait wait....it will get much better with a driver update - what do you think AMD has been working on with the Omega drivers? Performance optimizations for the HD4000 series cards or what?

Wow, where to start, quite the rant there.

Overhyped? Yes. Underperforming? Sorta, it didn't live up to the hype (AMD needs to get that under control, it gets really out of hand), but it does trade blows with the 980ti, as they intended. It is not crushed or destroyed by the 980ti, they are pretty evenly matched. Stock to stock.

HBM...I do find it impressive that it can match or beat performance of GDDR5 at such a lower clock speed, it shows the potential of the technology, but first-to-market...I could care less. Even nVidia knows that GDDR5 is at it's limits and will be employing HBM on their next lineup. Being first is not always a good thing and I believe the limitation is the GPU itself and not the memory in this case. BTW Titan X is $1,000+, I assume you are referring to the 980ti at $650 and was released ~ 3 weeks before Fury X.

What do I think custom BIOS will get, more performance? Yes, of course, that's the point of making custom BIOS and hopefully enable overclocking options. Do I think it will destroy the 980ti, doubt it. This card trades blows with the 980ti now and I see that trend continuing, but considering how cool this runs and yes, having a watercooler (air cooled version July 14th), leaves me to believe there should be a lot of untapped performance there. I could be wrong, but until people start tweaking it, neither of us know.

As for the driver, IIRC nVidia released a driver for the 6XX series that increased performance ~20% on average. So there is precedent for drivers giving significant performance boosts.There is no way of knowing what future drivers will do for AMD, but you shouldn't assume there wont be any improvement.

All that being said, am I trying to convince you to buy one, no. Do I think this is a crap product? No. I believe it didn't live up to the hype, was over promised by AMD and does what it was supposed to, trading blows with the 980ti. Though I have to admit, with all the hype, the current numbers are underwhelming, but this card is by no means a disaster. Other than AMD marketing, who said it had to beat the 980ti soundly?

I do see why AMD spoke so much about 4k though, at 1080p, this card needs some serious help compared to the 980ti. I don't have any idea why AMD is pushing so hard to win such a small portion of the market (4k gaming). Maybe they see it as forward thinking...But this is similar to previous generations, as resolution goes up, so does their performance.

What's funny is, last night a friend asked my advice of what to buy and I recommended the 980ti to him as it wins in the games he plays(which he bought from newegg last night). I don't suggest anyone wait for performance increases (that may never come), I suggest they look over the benchmarks that matter to them and make an informed decision. If AMD changes things, so be it.

 

[SamyNaceri]

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.

You are right about power consumption. It is NOT lower than the GTX980Ti power consumption
There are links already posted links to over half a dozen reviews CLEARLY SHOWING THE Fury X consuming more than the 980Ti in EVERY. SINGLE. CASE. while underperforming and having less VRAM.

All these people saying the power consumption is WAAAAY lower than 980Ti must be smoking some serious stuff. It's at least 40W - 80W HIGHER on the Fury X. That's for worse performance and worse performance-per-watt. Are you people high tonight or what?

 

[Eggz]

I think focusing on any single card is a little short sighted, at least when you're talking about one company's tech compared to another. Of course it makes sense for purchasing, since you have to actually purchase a card.

But focusing on AMD's tech, I think that Fury X is special, even though I currently use Intel/Nvidia (and plan to do so for now). The HBM offers revolutionary potential that the company can licence out, probably to Nvidia, which will make money. No GPU can use anywhere near the bandwidth.

It's like when motherboards switched from regular PCI to PCI-e 3.0 (in several generations). People were like, "What's the point if you can't use it?" Well, it's been several years, and not even the fastest multi-GPU card can saturate that bandwidth. PCI-e was a major leap forward in terms of potential. HBM does the same thing. It's unheard of bandwidth.

As for the GPU chip itselt, I also think that it's special. You have to keep in mind that we're comparing Maxwell to Fury, not just this model card to that model card. Maxwell came out in February of last year, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_700_series, so it's had about 16 moths to mature. Maxwell's had four chip releases to refine its maturation process: (1) GM 107, (2) GM 108, (3) GM 204, and (4) GM 200.

But Fury's on it's first chip. I think looking forward, that's good news. In orther words, Fury's just a baby right now, but it's keeping up with a (mostly) matured Nvidia architecture. I personally don't think it's a great idea to buy any architecture until it's fully mature, unless you really need something now and can't wait for some reason.

The R9 290X's architecture is phasing out, and you're seeing the most it can do in the 390X card. It's pretty much tapped right now, but it's a good 1080p (maybe 1440p) card if you're coming off something several years old.

I expect Fury to eventually outperform Maxwell's most mature chip (probably will be the GM 210), but given that AMD launched Fury mid-Maxwell, Nvidia's Pascal chips will likely outperform Fury eventually. We'll see this leapfrog thing go on unless one company or the other changes its timing.

In any case, looking at Fury X as a "first daft" of this architecture, I find it damn impressive. Nvidia's first draft chips (e.g. GM 107 in the GTX 750 and 750 ti) were not nearly as aggressive as Fury X. Part of that could be Nvidia's plan, since it has a record of "testing" new architectures on low-end gaming consumers, and then trickling up the price range until a chip is finally refined enough for professional cards like Quadro and Tesla. Whatever the plan, architectures improve over time, and we should expect good things from this new AMD graphics silicon.

 

[jimmysmitty]

There is a lot of negativity on here and other sites, but if you consider the details, this card is not bad.
Many complain that HBM is a disappointment, but they should remember that HBM is doing at 500mhz what GDDR5 is at 7ghz, how is that not impressive?
As for the GPU, I am starting to think AMD tuned it to get into a certain power envelope, but i also think that overclocking will be more complicated and will be explained. AMD built in dual BIOS with a switch, if not for custom BIOS, why else would they have done that, how often does a GPU have it's BIOS get corrupted when it's left alone?

Personally, I think this was a decent launch, trading blows with the 980ti and even the Titan X, yes the 980ti has more wins, but I think/hope, AMD has something up their sleeves.

Try to stay positive!

HBM is impressive yet even with all that bandwidth it falls short which goes with something I said before Fury X was even reviewed, that memory bandwidth is not a massive bottleneck for GPUs right now, in the future it will be but right now there are other bottlenecks that are far more important to focus on such as API overhead (being addressed with DX12) and the internal overhead in the GPU core itself.

There is a difference though between staying positive and hoping. I do hope that AMD has something decent for their next 14nm based GPU. However, I am going to be realistic in that Fury X is a ok GPU.

 

[Martell1977]

HBM is impressive yet even with all that bandwidth it falls short which goes with something I said before Fury X was even reviewed, that memory bandwidth is not a massive bottleneck for GPUs right now, in the future it will be but right now there are other bottlenecks that are far more important to focus on such as API overhead (being addressed with DX12) and the internal overhead in the GPU core itself.

There is a difference though between staying positive and hoping. I do hope that AMD has something decent for their next 14nm based GPU. However, I am going to be realistic in that Fury X is a ok GPU.

Agreed, my point was that Fury X is not the disaster that some are trying to make it out to be. It is a competitive product where AMD targeted it. It's not the Halo product many were hoping for and the hype made it out to be. But it is competitive.