AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review

[blazorthon]

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. The woes are not about where to put the radiator. The woes are about: Why complicate my life with a card that requires liquid cooling when a similarly priced alternative is much, much more elegant and self-contained - the typical GPU format, in other words. Why? Lower performance, same price, more space taken in my case, higher temps in my case (that 120mm mounting space won't be used for case cooling anymore), more sources of noise (pump+fans)...all this for what? For being made by AMD or why? How about Crossfire? Ooops. Let's not even get there.

First off, that 120mm radiator replacing a case fan? Sure it does. Replace an exhaust fan and there is little to no difference in case temp. The air is still moving in the same direction. Obviously, replacing an intake fan would be different, but that would be stupid unless it was the only option, an unlikely scenario.

Yes, if you want an air cooled card, then you're right, not getting what you want is annoying. However, we don't know if there will be any aftermarket air-cooled cards, so it's too early to complain. I do agree that if you buy a Fury X and get one with the defective pump, then that is definitely something to complain about. That was bullshit quality control and all companies involved (AMD, Cooler Master, AVO, and anyone else I'm missing) should make remands for it. However, the models with proper pumps are nearly silent and the fan's noise shouldn't be an issue since you would have a case fan there anyway and an air cooled model would obviously have even more fans.

Building something that small is alright - it's actually amazing. A huge leap in tech. The thing is - that small format+the liquid cooler actually end up taking more space in my case than your average gaming GPU does, be it R9 290X or GTX980Ti. The size of the R9 Fury X is CARD+COOLING because the first cannot work without the second. In that case, the card is quite big. Had AMD executed this thing right, the card wouldn't have needed liquid cooling. THAT would've been serious progress in terms of card size.

Again, there is a model of Fury, the nano, specifically made for smaller form factors, so any complaints about Fury in them are pointless. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with small form factors, only that this card is not meant for it and there will be a version meant for it. Besides that, the Fury's heat profile is not so huge (especially in gaming where it's not MUCH worse than the competition) that it couldn't be air cooled. There are plenty of other cards that needed more power in gaming but were air cooled anyway and worked just fine with it even if some needed better than reference to really shine.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for poor overclocking numbers with water cooling. What the HELL were they thinking, that there would be a liquid nitrogen version coming from board partners or what? Moreover, Advanced Micro Devices clearly stated the card's cooling is NOT a requirement, but rather something to improve overclockability, adding the card actually has a lot of "headroom". OH RLY? Where is that headroom? Or is it that the GPU's head was gonna be cut in half in some room? Utter bullshit they deserve to take a shot in the head for. Just like nVidia deserved when they sold a 3.5GB card as a 4GB one and moreover blaming users for it. Utter effing see u en tee ess.

You don't know WHY the review cards had poor overclocking. Part of it may have been the overclocking software not being ready for it, the fact that the silicon was still not fully out of testing stages, who knows. You don't know if retail cards will overclock anything like the test cards did. Test cards not overclocking much at all whereas retail models overclock FAR better is extremely common. They're in the testing stages for a reason, these reviews were merely a preview of the last testing stage before retail.

Correct, there "aren't" - that is 3rd person, plural, SIMPLE PRESENT. Right? How about "there won't be"? Ooops, things change quite quickly in that case. So let me see if I get this straight - they rebadge the R9 290X and increase the VRAM to 8GB saying "futureproof, you'll be able to play at high res, bla bla bla", then they want to sell the most powerful card they've ever made with half the amount of VRAM claiming, yeah, it's HBM, you'll be OK, 4K!, 4K!, 4K! It's the utlimate 4K gaming card! 4K! 4K! 4K!....well God damn, HBM surely won't make the difference when a game ASKS for 5GB of VRAM or more. It won't. VRAM that isn't there is exactly that - absent VRAM. Tweak it as much as you want, but that's 4GB - just as much as an R9 290.

Crossfire tests would show very conclusively whether or not a single Fury X will have a memory capacity issue within the next few years. If two or more Fury X cards in Crossfire don't reach a memory capacity bottleneck in current games, then you know with near certainty that a single card will not have such an issue anytime soon. If the crossfire tests do show problems, then you know the next generation or two of games will break 4GB even of HBM.

Furthermore, just because a game "asks" for more than 4GB does not mean it will need it. Run a game even on the 12GB titan and you'll see a LOT of VRAM being used in many games, but play them the same way with a graphics setup that has even 2GB or 3GB and you'll often see no capacity bottleneck. Just because a game can use so much VRAM does not mean it needs to.

It is a strong improvement - but if it isn't too bad, then its pricing is definitely too bad. I'm not paying $650 for something "not too bad", when I can pay the same amount of cash for something "well executed". What's the point? Nobody in their right mind would do that. "Not too bad"? Price it accordingly. If you're NOT on par with your competitor tech-wise, don't act like you can be on-par price-wise. Most of the disappointment is related to an AMD that used to offer more for less. Now they wanted to offer more for the same price, but God damn, they ended up offering LESS for MORE. They must reverse it, otherwise it's not looking good for them.

The fact that it uses about 15% more power in most games, maybe up to 20% or even 25%, then the similarly performing 980 Ti and Titan X is not a decision breaking situation for the vast majority of people who would buy this card. Its not a matter of paying a lot of money for "not too bad", it's a matter of the power consumption being "not too bad" compared to the competition AT THIS PRICE POINT. The fact is that buyers, especially at this price point, don't normally care at all about such a relatively small power consumption difference. Heat generation won't be much higher in gaming and it's all exhausted out of the case rather than lingering in the case for case fans to try to remove. The same can not be said for most air cooled cards. Hell, let's say someone DID want to buy a water cooled card, which is not unusual at such high price points. How much more do you need to pay for a 980 Ti or Titan X with water cooling?

Really, at this time, there is simply not enough information for doom and gloom predictions. We need more information. We need crossfire tests to demonstrate the limits of the memory capacity, we need retail cards to demonstrate overclocking headroom, and we need more retail cards to come out to see if there will be any air-cooled models. If there are, they might even be a bit cheaper. As it is now, you literally don't know what EXACTLY they are offering.

The most relevant complaint that can be made at this time is about the pump's noise, as is discussed at length in the new article.

 

[littleleo]

Anandtech, on R9 Fury X:
"Bringing this review to a close, AMD has certainly thrown a great deal at us with the Radeon R9 Fury X. As a result the R9 Fury X is an immensely interesting card.Compared to the R9 290X then, AMD has gone and done virtually everything they have needed to do in order to right what was wrong, and to compete with an NVIDIA energized by GTX Titan and the Maxwell architecture.

Had this card launched against the GTX Titan X a couple of months ago, where we would be today is talking about how AMD doesn’t quite dethrone the NVIDIA flagship, but instead how they serve as a massive spoiler, delivering so much of GTX Titan X’s performance for a fraction of the cost.

But, unfortunately for AMD, this is not what has happened. The competition for the R9 Fury X is not an overpriced GTX Titan X, but a well-priced GTX 980 Ti, which to add insult to injury launched first, even though it was in all likelihood NVIDIA’s reaction to R9 Fury X.

The problem for AMD is that the R9 Fury X is only 90% of the way there, and without a price spoiler effect the R9 Fury X doesn’t go quite far enough. At 4K it trails the GTX 980 Ti by 4%, which is to say that AMD could not manage a strict tie or to take the lead. To be fair to AMD, a 4% difference in absolute terms is unlikely to matter in the long run, and for most practical purposes the R9 Fury X is a viable alternative to the GTX 980 Ti at 4K.
None the less it does technically trail the GTX 980 Ti here, and that’s not the only issue that dogs such a capable card.

At 2560x1440 the card loses its status as a viable alternative. AMD’s performance deficit is over 10% at this point, and as we’ve seen in a couple of our games, AMD is hitting some very real CPU bottlenecking even on our high-end system. Absolute framerates are high enough that this only occurs at lower resolutions thanks to the high framerates these resolutions afford (and not a problem for 60Hz monitors), however at the same time AMD is also promoting 2560x1440@144Hz Freesync monitors, which these CPU bottlenecking issues greatly undercut.

The bigger issue, I suppose, is that while the R9 Fury X is very fast, I don’t feel we’ve reached the point where 4K gaming on a single GPU is the best way to go; too often we still need to cut back on image quality to reach playable framerates. 4K is arguably still the domain of multi-GPU setups, meanwhile cards like the R9 Fury X and GTX 980 Ti are excellent cards for 2560x1440 gaming, or even 1080p gaming for owners who want to take advantage of the image quality improvements from Virtual Super Resolution.

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.

At the end of the day I think AMD can at least take home credit for forcing the GTX 980 Ti in to existence, which has benefitted the wider hobbyist community. Still, looking at AMD’s situation I can’t help but wonder what happens from here, as it seems like AMD badly needed a win they won’t quite get."

Next time it may be better just to list a link to the article instead of copying and pasting parts of it here.

 

[burek]

Why did you not include this ??
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti,4164-9.html
Specviewperf12 ?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I see a lot of woes about where to put the radiator. I have to ask how anyone buying a $650 card can possibly have an issue finding a place for a single 120mm radiator. It's not like people tend to go out buying such an expensive card and putting it in a $30 case.

We shouldn't complain about small form factors because there is a version coming out that's meant for those. If i was a 2x120mm radiator, then I'd agree that a lot of people will have trouble finding a place for it.

As for poor overclocking numbers from other sites, I'd suggest waiting until there are retail cards to test with software better suited for them. We don't know the headroom on the retail cards because they will not be quite the same. Yes, what we've seen is disappointing, but we don't know how comparable they will be to cards that buyers will have. If nothing else, we can at least see that thermal headroom is clearly not an issue. Seeing new drivers meant for it would be a nice bonus too, but that's not the big deal here.

Next, complainers about 4GB of memory capacity should read the benchmarks because there aren't any situations where Fury was strangled by it. Future games remain to be seen and I admit to having my own doubts, but I wouldn't make a decision until I see crossfire tests with more intense settings.

1. There will be no aftermarket vendor (non reference) cards for the Fury-X, at least according to AMD.

2. The radiator is too small .... w/ target delta T of 10C, a 120mm fan is good for (per martinsliquidlab) ...

1000 rpm fan gets ya 50 watts of cooling
1250 rpm fan gets ya 61 watts of cooling
1400 rpm fan gets ya 68 watts of cooling
1800 rpm fan gets ya 86 watts of cooling
2200 rpm fan gets ya 102 watts of cooling

If we assume that the rad is only expected to handle 60% of the heat load, then at 2200 rpm and 10C delta T (water to air) you could handle 170 watts (the rest assumed to be given off as thermal radiation inside the case) ... at max load that puts the delta T at about 22C....

3. Testing showed no performance hit on the 770s at 2 GB versus 4 GB at up to 5760 x 1080..... and current testing shows no hit on current cards with less than 4 GB .... nothing is bothering performance with 4 GB tho you can manufacture unrealistic scenarios where this is a problem as happened with the 3.5 GB 970 red herring.

4. Electric cost is not so small. With the 290x versus 970 in SLI / CF in NYC for example.

MSI 290x gaming w/ Metro 2033 = 263 watts (369 max)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_290X_Gaming/22.html

MSI 970 gaming w/ Metro 2033 = 192 watts (213 max)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/25.html

(263 - 192) x 2 cards x 30 hours per week x 1/1000 watts per kw x 52.13 weeks per year x (1/85% eff) x 3 years x 0.24 per kwhr = $94

First off, that 120mm radiator replacing a case fan? Sure it does. Replace an exhaust fan and there is little to no difference in case temp. The air is still moving in the same direction. Obviously, replacing an intake fan would be different, but that would be stupid unless it was the only option, an unlikely scenario.

1st rule of water cooling ... Radiator fans always blow INTO the case. You have 23C outisde air and 30C inside the case air .... which will do a better job cooling the radiator. Read Corsair's install instructions for their CLC's, look at Swiftech's install diagram ... all show fans blowing in.

However, we don't know if there will be any aftermarket air-cooled cards

AMD said no, tho they may change their minds.

You don't know WHY the review cards had poor overclocking. Part of it may have been the overclocking software not being ready for it, the fact that the silicon was still not fully out of testing stages, who knows. You don't know if retail cards will overclock anything like the test cards did. Test cards not overclocking much at all whereas retail models overclock FAR better is extremely common. They're in the testing stages for a reason, these reviews were merely a preview of the last testing stage before retail.

But yes we do know. We have seen it throughout the 2xx series. AMD very aggressively overclocks their cards in the box. This has been true of every single R7 and R9 card to date.

Furthermore, just because a game "asks" for more than 4GB does not mean it will need it. Run a game even on the 12GB titan and you'll see a LOT of VRAM being used in many games, but play them the same way with a graphics setup that has even 2GB or 3GB and you'll often see no capacity bottleneck. Just because a game can use so much VRAM does not mean it needs to.

Absolutely..... we saw this here and nothing's changed since. The better said, a game may be able to "use" more than 2 GB (last generation) or 4 GB(this generation) but no one has been able to show a performance impact there from

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,12.html

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

The one exception was Assassins Creed Unity on the 960 2 GB vs 4 GB ... fps was impacted slightly but frame lag increased significantly.

The fact that it uses about 15% more power in most games, maybe up to 20% or even 25%, then the similarly performing 980 Ti and Titan X is not a decision breaking situation for the vast majority of people who would buy this card....

The Titan doesn't belong in this discussion as the only peeps who buy them are:

1. Those that need workstation like performance but still wanna game
2. Those that equate cost with performance

I would agree if the price points were different but they are not. I'm not interested in out of the box performance and the Fury, like every other R9 / R7 card disappoints in over clocking.

I agree with you that power, heat, PSU size and other factors don't factor into a decision sometimes when making choices. Looking here for example

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/34.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/33.html

With the 980 Ti giving me 134.8 fps and the Fury X giving me 108.1 at the same price, with a 25% performance advantage, I couldn't give a hoot about PSU, heat, power, size, etc. But for the sake of argument, let's say the overclocked performance was a virtual tie ..... then I would go to the tie breakers.... "all things (price and performance) being equal", heat, power, functionality, driver support, PSU requirements will be items that I think most peeps will consider in the buying decision.

Really, at this time, there is simply not enough information for doom and gloom predictions. We need more information. We need crossfire tests to demonstrate the limits of the memory capacity, we need retail cards to demonstrate overclocking headroom, and we need more retail cards to come out to see if there will be any air-cooled models. If there are, they might even be a bit cheaper. As it is now, you literally don't know what EXACTLY they are offering.

As for memory, not an issue tho the Fury X2 will come with more memory. As for custom cooling solutions, again, not happening

http://videocardz.com/56911/amd-launches-radeon-r9-fury-x-first-graphics-card-with-high-bandwidth-memory

Richard Huddy confirmed Fury X will not be available with custom cooling solutions designed by AIB partners, but the Fury non-x will

 

[blazorthon]

1. There will be no aftermarket vendor (non reference) cards for the Fury-X, at least according to AMD.

2. The radiator is too small .... w/ target delta T of 10C, a 120mm fan is good for (per martinsliquidlab) ...

1000 rpm fan gets ya 50 watts of cooling
1250 rpm fan gets ya 61 watts of cooling
1400 rpm fan gets ya 68 watts of cooling
1800 rpm fan gets ya 86 watts of cooling
2200 rpm fan gets ya 102 watts of cooling

If we assume that the rad is only expected to handle 60% of the heat load, then at 2200 rpm and 10C delta T (water to air) you could handle 170 watts (the rest assumed to be given off as thermal radiation inside the case) ... at max load that puts the delta T at about 22C....

3. Testing showed no performance hit on the 770s at 2 GB versus 4 GB at up to 5760 x 1080..... and current testing shows no hit on current cards with less than 4 GB .... nothing is bothering performance with 4 GB tho you can manufacture unrealistic scenarios where this is a problem as happened with the 3.5 GB 970 red herring.

4. Electric cost is not so small. With the 290x versus 970 in SLI / CF in NYC for example.

MSI 290x gaming w/ Metro 2033 = 263 watts (369 max)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_290X_Gaming/22.html

MSI 970 gaming w/ Metro 2033 = 192 watts (213 max)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/25.html

(263 - 192) x 2 cards x 30 hours per week x 1/1000 watts per kw x 52.13 weeks per year x (1/85% eff) x 3 years x 0.24 per kwhr = $94

We'll have to wait and see since past experience has shown that the non-reference cards pop up even where they supposedly shouldn't.

In the gaming workloads, the cooler seemed to do the job and I'm sure it would handle it well with a more aggressive fan profile. The torture tests worry me, especially if I was using them to test an overclock. However, I agree that a larger radiator would make more sense, granted it would then be more difficult for some cases to fit, especially in Crossfire. Would it be possible to make use a 2x120mm rad that can separate into two 120mm rads should a case not be able to fit a 240mm rad? It's not a perfect solution, but I think that anyone willing to spend so much on graphics cards would be willing to put down enough on a case that can fit it comfortably, even in Crossfire.

The memory capacity argument is not about how games are now, it's more about how they will be in the next few years. I don't anticipate issues, but I don't want to state that there won't be any as if I know it for sure.

Yes, the 290X and such consume enough power for that to matter. The difference in gaming power consumption between Fury X and the 980 Ti is not nearly so large. It is there, but it's still much smaller. I'm not nearly as worried about a mere ~$10 per year when I'm already spending about $1300 on the cards.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I would have preferred that they took an Asus Poseidon like approach and allowed user's to attach what they want ... I see that EK and others have water blocks already ... but that means tossing what's gotta be $100+ of cooler.

Be nice if they sold a $550 version w/o the cooler. I'd like to see how feasible it would be to:

1. Take 2 Fury X's
2. Put a 420 rad in the top of an Enthoo Luxe
3. Mount a Swiftech H220-X in front

The $200 saved for the Fury's would just about cover the cost of the Swiftech ($140) and Xt45-420 rad ($85)

As for electric cost, depends on where ya live and how much ya play

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,10.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_review,8.html

Only 45 watts would be about $20 a year in NYC at 30 hours a week....easily triple that is some Euro cities. If ya have Hydro, could be as low as $5.

 

[Gurg]

AMD gagging financially with 8% decline in sales and 4% decline in gross margin in second quarter.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chipmaker-amd-cuts-revenue-estimate-203532548.html

 

[JackNaylorPE]

It was 75 / 25 last quarter with respect to market share ... are we now talking 83 / 17 ? I don't like this. Hopefully, once prices adjust to the limited availability, we'll see a nice bump in sales.

 

[Martell1977]

AMD gagging financially with 8% decline in sales and 4% decline in gross margin in second quarter.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chipmaker-amd-cuts-revenue-estimate-203532548.html

If the plan is to get a new driver out for the Fury X to boost performance or to enable overclocking, they need to focus their resources and get it done. If they can change the performance gap in their favor, that will be huge. I don't know their plans, but that would be the best scenario for them.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I'm hoping a new driver does something but don't expect OC'ing to improve. My fear is that with the new memory and built in WC, their margins are already extremely small. They have a X2 (Version 2 ) in the works, maybe that will change fortunes. Perhaps it will have a surprise or 2 in addition to the 8GB VRAM

 

[Gurg]

I'm hoping a new driver does something but don't expect OC'ing to improve. My fear is that with the new memory and built in WC, their margins are already extremely small. They have a X2 (Version 2 ) in the works, maybe that will change fortunes. Perhaps it will have a surprise or 2 in addition to the 8GB VRAM

Second quarter financials will be out 7/16?, but AMD 1st Quarter 10Q:

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/financials/drawFiling.asp?docKey=137-000119312515156842-51D02KC1LTT6LDDFJ7S58K507L&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-Q#tx914071_2

Showed very minimal stock holder equity, negative income from ongoing operations before special charges and negative cash flow. AMD's management needs to pull a real big financial rabbit out of the hat.

 

[Reynod]

Jack thanks for your input along the way here in this thread ... very refreshing commentary.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I didn't add anything .... just recorded where i read the info and put it all in one place

 

[Ninjawithagun]

AMD has failed again and this time may be their last. Talks are already underway of AMD liquidation of assets or negotiating a buy out. Not sure who would buy them. I'm just waiting for a Chinese company to swoop in and save the day for AMD...for a price of course!

Some contributing factors that lead to AMD's demise:

1) Terrible CPU R&D; AMD never really recovered from Intel's onslaught of the Sandybridge CPU architecture back in 2011. Since then, the performance gap has only increased with each new Intel CPU family iteration.

2) FreeSync failure; AMD initially touted FreeSync as being not only Free, but also better in performance vs. Nvidia's G-Sync technology. As we all now know, FreeSync is free, but it's performance is completely inferior in performance in every way when compared to G-Sync. And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

3) Fury X Nightmare; AMD absolutely fell on their face with this last tout of supremacy. Not only did they lie about the Fury X performance in their press release, but also the fact that it was a paper launch. It has been three weeks and still this card can not be bought at any electronic retailer. Supposedly, some own this card already, but I have yet to see any customer reviews posted. And last, but not least, it has come to our attention that the Fury X waterpump unit is defective and makes unusually loud grinding noises when in operation. At least AMD finally admitting to there being a problem and said in their recent press release that this issue would be resolved.

In the end, AMD only has themselves to blame for all the lies, inferior products, and absolutely horrible software development team that could never quite get the drivers right. The only 'bad' that will come out of AMD closing shop is that Intel and Nvidia won't have any competition!

AMD stock is NOT looking good at all: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209413-amds-stock-price-hammered-after-company-revises-second-quarter-outlook

 

[InvalidError]

And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

FreeSync is nothing more than AMD's marketing name for AdaptiveSync support in their drivers and GPUs. On the monitor side of things, scaler chip manufacturers have said many of their old chips are firmware-upgradable to AdaptiveSync, so you can probably blame scaler chip manufacturers sitting on firmware updates for their existing chips for low availability.

 

[blazorthon]

AMD has failed again and this time may be their last. Talks are already underway of AMD liquidation of assets or negotiating a buy out. Not sure who would buy them. I'm just waiting for a Chinese company to swoop in and save the day for AMD...for a price of course!

Some contributing factors that lead to AMD's demise:

1) Terrible CPU R&D; AMD never really recovered from Intel's onslaught of the Sandybridge CPU architecture back in 2011. Since then, the performance gap has only increased with each new Intel CPU family iteration.

2) FreeSync failure; AMD initially touted FreeSync as being not only Free, but also better in performance vs. Nvidia's G-Sync technology. As we all now know, FreeSync is free, but it's performance is completely inferior in performance in every way when compared to G-Sync. And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

3) Fury X Nightmare; AMD absolutely fell on their face with this last tout of supremacy. Not only did they lie about the Fury X performance in their press release, but also the fact that it was a paper launch. It has been three weeks and still this card can not be bought at any electronic retailer. Supposedly, some own this card already, but I have yet to see any customer reviews posted. And last, but not least, it has come to our attention that the Fury X waterpump unit is defective and makes unusually loud grinding noises when in operation. At least AMD finally admitting to there being a problem and said in their recent press release that this issue would be resolved.

In the end, AMD only has themselves to blame for all the lies, inferior products, and absolutely horrible software development team that could never quite get the drivers right. The only 'bad' that will come out of AMD closing shop is that Intel and Nvidia won't have any competition!

AMD stock is NOT looking good at all: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209413-amds-stock-price-hammered-after-company-revises-second-quarter-outlook

One thing I can't understand is the lack of knowledge on the subject of monopoly. In the USA, where these companies originate, it is illegal and the tech industry is especially focused on by enforcement agencies. Should AMD really enter bankruptcy, it wouldn't change much. Intel and Nvidia MUST have competition.

AMD will be bought out and continue running or Intel and/or Nvidia (or both) will literally be forced to split into multiple companies and some sort of agreements would be made for AMD's patent portfolio. Or maybe some other arrangement would be made. Regardless, there would still be competition.

As for whether or not AMD will "close up shop" in the near future, your link's conclusion is that AMD's future is dependent on Zen and until it launches in 2016, we don't know what will happen.

https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/#xcx=0&c=319

Fury X is not only available, but several people have bought some and left reviews for it, so I don't know where you're coming from in claiming otherwise.

I'd point out that Freesync adoption is not something AMD can control seeing as it affects products that AMD has no control over, but InvalidError covered that nicely.

Also, please tell me where AMD lied in their press release, assuming this is the correct page:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/new-era-pc-gaming-2015jun16.aspx

 

[jimmysmitty]

AMD has failed again and this time may be their last. Talks are already underway of AMD liquidation of assets or negotiating a buy out. Not sure who would buy them. I'm just waiting for a Chinese company to swoop in and save the day for AMD...for a price of course!

Some contributing factors that lead to AMD's demise:

1) Terrible CPU R&D; AMD never really recovered from Intel's onslaught of the Sandybridge CPU architecture back in 2011. Since then, the performance gap has only increased with each new Intel CPU family iteration.

2) FreeSync failure; AMD initially touted FreeSync as being not only Free, but also better in performance vs. Nvidia's G-Sync technology. As we all now know, FreeSync is free, but it's performance is completely inferior in performance in every way when compared to G-Sync. And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

3) Fury X Nightmare; AMD absolutely fell on their face with this last tout of supremacy. Not only did they lie about the Fury X performance in their press release, but also the fact that it was a paper launch. It has been three weeks and still this card can not be bought at any electronic retailer. Supposedly, some own this card already, but I have yet to see any customer reviews posted. And last, but not least, it has come to our attention that the Fury X waterpump unit is defective and makes unusually loud grinding noises when in operation. At least AMD finally admitting to there being a problem and said in their recent press release that this issue would be resolved.

In the end, AMD only has themselves to blame for all the lies, inferior products, and absolutely horrible software development team that could never quite get the drivers right. The only 'bad' that will come out of AMD closing shop is that Intel and Nvidia won't have any competition!

AMD stock is NOT looking good at all: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209413-amds-stock-price-hammered-after-company-revises-second-quarter-outlook

1. I would say since Conroe in 2006 was when AMD started getting assaulted by Intel. It continued with Kentsfield (4 core Conroe) then went into Penryn/Yorksfield and Nehalem. Sandy Bridge was just kicking them while they were down.

2. I haven't really looked into this but I was under the impression that both had their ups and downs but essentially did the same thing.

3. Fury X is not bad. It just is not amazing. The 9700Pro was amazing. The 8800GTX was amazing. The HD 7970GHz was amazing. All of these GPUs (and many others) normally broke the mold and beat the pants off the competition for the time. Fury X does not do that, rather it is much like Hawaii XT was. It competes but it doesn't beat the pants off of it.

 

[Mousemonkey]

The way that AMD "transitioned" from the 939 to AM2 was what turned quite a few of us away, promised support evaporated in favour of trying to match Intel.

 

[InvalidError]

One thing I can't understand is the lack of knowledge on the subject of monopoly. In the USA, where these companies originate, it is illegal and the tech industry is especially focused on by enforcement agencies. Should AMD really enter bankruptcy, it wouldn't change much. Intel and Nvidia MUST have competition.

There is nothing illegal about owning a monopoly. What is illegal is achieving a monopoly position through unfair competition.

As far as breaking up Intel or Nvidia goes, it does not make sense: if you split their R&D resources and budgets in half, they basically end up in the same situation as AMD - not enough cash and resources to deliver products in a timely manner.

The most the DoJ might be able to do is order Intel to license the integral x86 instruction set including extensions on FRAND terms to anyone who might be interested in entering the x86 chip market but just about everyone who owned an x86 license has given up on x86 beyond 8051 clones. But who would? The cost and complexity are far too high for any new entrant to stand a reasonable chance of becoming economically viable.

In an antitrust hearing, Intel would likely argue that its "monopoly" position is the weakest it has ever been with ARM-based personal computing devices shipping more units annually than x86-based PCs and laptops with Intel struggling to gain market share in the mobile segments and PC/laptop sales either stagnating or regressing.

 

[Reynod]

AMD has failed again and this time may be their last. Talks are already underway of AMD liquidation of assets or negotiating a buy out. Not sure who would buy them. I'm just waiting for a Chinese company to swoop in and save the day for AMD...for a price of course!

Some contributing factors that lead to AMD's demise:

1) Terrible CPU R&D; AMD never really recovered from Intel's onslaught of the Sandybridge CPU architecture back in 2011. Since then, the performance gap has only increased with each new Intel CPU family iteration.

2) FreeSync failure; AMD initially touted FreeSync as being not only Free, but also better in performance vs. Nvidia's G-Sync technology. As we all now know, FreeSync is free, but it's performance is completely inferior in performance in every way when compared to G-Sync. And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

3) Fury X Nightmare; AMD absolutely fell on their face with this last tout of supremacy. Not only did they lie about the Fury X performance in their press release, but also the fact that it was a paper launch. It has been three weeks and still this card can not be bought at any electronic retailer. Supposedly, some own this card already, but I have yet to see any customer reviews posted. And last, but not least, it has come to our attention that the Fury X waterpump unit is defective and makes unusually loud grinding noises when in operation. At least AMD finally admitting to there being a problem and said in their recent press release that this issue would be resolved.

In the end, AMD only has themselves to blame for all the lies, inferior products, and absolutely horrible software development team that could never quite get the drivers right. The only 'bad' that will come out of AMD closing shop is that Intel and Nvidia won't have any competition!

AMD stock is NOT looking good at all: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209413-amds-stock-price-hammered-after-company-revises-second-quarter-outlook

1. I would say since Conroe in 2006 was when AMD started getting assaulted by Intel. It continued with Kentsfield (4 core Conroe) then went into Penryn/Yorksfield and Nehalem. Sandy Bridge was just kicking them while they were down.

2. I haven't really looked into this but I was under the impression that both had their ups and downs but essentially did the same thing.

3. Fury X is not bad. It just is not amazing. The 9700Pro was amazing. The 8800GTX was amazing. The HD 7970GHz was amazing. All of these GPUs (and many others) normally broke the mold and beat the pants off the competition for the time. Fury X does not do that, rather it is much like Hawaii XT was. It competes but it doesn't beat the pants off of it.

Jimmy thanks for correcting those points ... I was going to comment about the double cheeseburger but thought that war ended a long time ago.

 

[demonhorde665]

honestly as a 35 (almost 36) year old PC gamer That's been a Pc gamer since 1994, I'm Genuinely tired of the never ending resolution chase. I'm quite happy just to keep a PC running games at 1080p with settings maxed. My monitor is only 24 inches with native 1080p any damn way. When I can't do the newest game at 1080p with settings maxed then I'll get a new video card and or computer. as for the monitor same thing, i'll get a new one when this one's back lights finally go out. And if some dumb young punk wants to tell me how i'm "not areal " gamer because I don't chase the latest resolutions, all I have to say to him or her is what an idiot they are and I bet the hardware companies and monitor companies must really love them.

if these companies want to really impress me , they need to stop talking resolution boost and start talking about implementing new (old tech ) like real time Ray tracing at 60 fps or photometric lighting. Hell last major graphical advancement was Displacement mapping (aka Tessellation) and that was added by dx 11 back in 2010. (which consoles got a bit late in 2013 with the PS4 and XBX1).


That all said I'm just really sick of the resolution jumping that goes on I'm sick of people acting like I'm some kind of moron because I don't already own a 4k monitor (which cost an a-- load btw). i'm sick of companies pushing this crap just to sell us more hardware we don't really need (AMD is guilty of it this time with the 300 series being that it is just a name swap scheme with the 200 series). Yeah if you haven't figured it out yet , i'm not that impressed with this card.

 

[demonhorde665]

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...

yeah sorry dude , considering the number of games that are made to run on Linux is still in the realm of " very few and jack s---" I don't see amd making Linux drivers a major concern.

 

[ern88]

So, did the new 18.7 drivers improve anything on the Fury X?

 

[childofthekorn]

AMD has failed again and this time may be their last. Talks are already underway of AMD liquidation of assets or negotiating a buy out. Not sure who would buy them. I'm just waiting for a Chinese company to swoop in and save the day for AMD...for a price of course!

Some contributing factors that lead to AMD's demise:

1) Terrible CPU R&D; AMD never really recovered from Intel's onslaught of the Sandybridge CPU architecture back in 2011. Since then, the performance gap has only increased with each new Intel CPU family iteration.

2) FreeSync failure; AMD initially touted FreeSync as being not only Free, but also better in performance vs. Nvidia's G-Sync technology. As we all now know, FreeSync is free, but it's performance is completely inferior in performance in every way when compared to G-Sync. And AMD lied about the availability of FreeSync monitors. Fan boys would want to try and blame 3rd party monitor manufacturers for this shortfall, but ultimately AMD is responsible for the availabiliy of their products.

3) Fury X Nightmare; AMD absolutely fell on their face with this last tout of supremacy. Not only did they lie about the Fury X performance in their press release, but also the fact that it was a paper launch. It has been three weeks and still this card can not be bought at any electronic retailer. Supposedly, some own this card already, but I have yet to see any customer reviews posted. And last, but not least, it has come to our attention that the Fury X waterpump unit is defective and makes unusually loud grinding noises when in operation. At least AMD finally admitting to there being a problem and said in their recent press release that this issue would be resolved.

In the end, AMD only has themselves to blame for all the lies, inferior products, and absolutely horrible software development team that could never quite get the drivers right. The only 'bad' that will come out of AMD closing shop is that Intel and Nvidia won't have any competition!

AMD stock is NOT looking good at all: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/209413-amds-stock-price-hammered-after-company-revises-second-quarter-outlook

AMD's pain started with the bloated purchase of ATI, and subsequently lowered the R&D for CPU's especially, which si why they tried to go cheap with Bulldozer. Intel merely took advantage of the situation and have been milking ever since.

Regarding freesync, the specs are there (9Hz through 75 Hz IIRC), however the manufacturers haven't been meeting those specs. I cannot comment as to why so I'll withhold judgement for or against and I do not have access to Freesync monitor.

They have actually increased R&D in their CPU segment regarding Zen, however their overall R&D for all products is less than Intel spends solely on their CPU's, and their drivers have been improving since Omega. Just the frequency of release needs to be sped up a bit to match their competitor. They're not down and out yet, as they won't go for an acquisition, or liquidation of assets until next year at the earliest. If Zen falls through their promises, they are done for. For the sake of competition, even intel users should be hopeful they remain competitive in at least price per watt.

Their stocks have been this low in the past. And if anything should usher the fact that NOW IS THE TIME TO BUY!!! It will rise, even if for a short period of time once their 2016 products are announced as even those that follow the market know this will be their last attempt to make something competitive. But as I mentioned previously, if they fail to even provide something that competes, they will not survive much longer. Market analysts have used this anecdotal evidence to suggest if they do fail, they will be bankrupt by 2020.

 

[quilciri]

I can't help but root for AMD.

What most of the AMD naysayers seem to either overlook or fail to understand entirely is that, for their entire existence, Intel has had literally ten times the budget and personnel (or more!) as AMD.

AMD as a whole is only slightly larger than NVidia, with their GPU division being much smaller than NVidia.

Frankly, that AMD has stayed this close to competitiveness fighting a two front battle with Intel and Nvidia (occasionally beating them over the last decade) while simultaneously pushing out other technologies such as mantle/DirectX 12, APU's, and Freesync is pretty damn amazing.

I hope they stick around.