980 TI stock and OC vs. Fury X stock and OC [techspot]

[Carfax83]

That's still 10 percent at most in the best-case scenario. Nothing like the 30 percent gains in Doom Vulkan with Shader Intrinsics and Async Compute on GCN.

Doom Vulkan remains the best implementation of these low-level APIs till date.

As far as I know, NVAPI does allow shader intrinsic functions, and this can be used by any OpenGL, DX11 and DX12 game. It's also in the process of being ported over to Vulkan according to NVidia. The reason why Doom Vulkan gives such a large performance gain on AMD hardware is because ID was able to use the shader intrinsics to leverage many of the optimizations found in the console versions; plus AMD's OpenGL performance is really subpar compared to NVidia's.

Also, the biggest gains from low level APIs typically come from the reduction in CPU overhead and dramatically improved parallel rendering. In one particular CPU intensive area in Doom, I saw a massive 150% increase in performance from using Vulkan over OpenGL.

Moreover, I think that Async compute only alleviates the CPU overhead issue on GCN cards in Gears of War 4.

Asynchronous compute either interleaves or executes in parallel compute and graphics commands. If anything, CPU overhead should be increased when you use asynchronous compute as the CPU is sending instructions to the GPU at a faster rate.

 

[Carfax83]

The power consumption chart on the review site is not that accurate.
They measured the power consumption while running games in 1080p. For GPU power consumption they should run it at 1440p or 4K since they may hit the CPU bottleneck first on 1080p, leaving the GPUs not running 100%. 4K would best illustrates GPU power consumption since they would stress the GPUs a lot, especially GPUs that are heavily overclocked.

This is a good point. I looked at the chart and was like

I've never seen a power consumptions chart where a system with a reference model GTX 1080 is consuming more power than a system with a GTX 980 Ti. But when you look at the resolutions they used, begins to make sense.

 

[caswow]

It was indeed advertised as an Overclocker's dream by their own management team.

can we see that "advertisement"?

 

[Jaydip]

can we see that "advertisement"?

Watch the Fury X reveal event, I don't remember his name but it was said on stage.

 

[caswow]

Watch the Fury X reveal event, I don't remember his name but it was said on stage.

so it was said once on an event and people say it was advertised?

 

[n0x1ous]

Every enthusiast knew that it was said by a higher up AMD exec (an engineer named Joe Macri I believe). They were talking about how the PCB and power delivery were overbuilt etc etc. Then the card came out and couldn't overclock more than 5% and we had to wait months for voltage control. Everyone was hoping the unlocked voltage would let loose the hounds so to speak, but that didn't do much except up the power usage. The card has no headroom whatsoever.

 

[Creig]

It was said one time by Joe Macri on stage. It was never "advertised".

 

[n0x1ous]

Correct it was not advertised. But everyone knew who said it and it was during the reveal, not some behind closed doors meeting

 

[SlowSpyder]

Watch the Fury X reveal event, I don't remember his name but it was said on stage.

I remember that, but I took what was said in the context of the card's construction, how the VRM's and GPU were liquid cooled. I didn't think they were implying it'd overclock to the moon, just that the card was built in a way that overclockers would appreciate.

 

[pj-]

so it was said once on an event and people say it was advertised?

I don't get what you're arguing. They only said it once so it doesn't matter that it's not true?

 

[n0x1ous]

apparently the exact wording according to pcworld was

“You’ll be able to overclock this thing like no tomorrow,” AMD CTO Joe Macri said. “This is an overclocker’s dream.”

 

[nurturedhate]

I don't get what you're arguing. They only said it once so it doesn't matter that it's not true?

He's arguing the use of the word "advertised" and in this case he is correct. No where was it advertised. It's a little bit of semantics but no less correct. See previous posts for the origin of the statement.

 

[pj-]

I remember that, but I took what was said in the context of the card's construction, how the VRM's and GPU were liquid cooled. I didn't think they were implying it'd overclock to the moon, just that the card was built in a way that overclockers would appreciate.

https://youtu.be/VJ-qKucpQu8?t=2968

"we built these for the overclockers"

"you're going to be able to overclock this thing like no tomorrow"

"this is an overclocker's dream"

How in the world is that not implying it will be good at overclocking??

 

[Jaydip]

It is hilarious to see these replies, this guy was not some average Joe but quite high up in the hierarchy. I remember how the NV ceo was lambasted here after the 1080 reveal, the double standard here is frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caswow]

https://youtu.be/VJ-qKucpQu8?t=2968

"we built these for the overclockers"

"you're going to be able to overclock this thing like no tomorrow"

"this is an overclocker's dream"

How in the world is that not implying it will be good at overclocking??

we actually dont know why he said it but its certain that it was not advertised by amd.

 

[pj-]

we actually dont know why he said it but its certain that it was not advertised by amd.

I mean if you want to continue being super pedantic..

ad·ver·tise
ˈadvərˌtīz/
verb

1. describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.
   "a billboard advertising beer"
   • seek to fill (a vacancy) by putting a notice in a newspaper or other medium.
     "for every job we advertise we get a hundred applicants"
     synonyms: publicize, make public, make known, announce, broadcast, proclaim, trumpet, call attention to, bill, promulgate; More
   • make (a quality or fact) known.

Was that entire event not advertisement?

 

[96Firebird]

An event like that is one of the largest advertisements the card has ever had.

 

[Head1985]

Again with your lies.

It has been your daily routine to spread lies on GTX1070 and GTX980Ti

GTX980Ti hardly exceeds 1500Mhz unless you have golden sample. In the link posted by OP, 1.48Ghz 980Ti is faster than stock Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 on average on 7%. Did you forgot that the Gigabyte GTX1070 G1 can overclock as well?

They using reference 980TI with reference cooloer and reference TDP limit.That card will TDP/power limit throttle no matter what you do.So yeah aftermarket 980TI with custom bios will be much faster.
reference 980Ti cant run at 1500/8000 with reference cooler and power limit all time.It will throttle bellow 1400Mhz.

 

[SlowSpyder]

https://youtu.be/VJ-qKucpQu8?t=2968

"we built these for the overclockers"

"you're going to be able to overclock this thing like no tomorrow"

"this is an overclocker's dream"

How in the world is that not implying it will be good at overclocking??

Like I said, I take that in the context that the card was built in a way that those that tinker with their hardware would enjoy this video card.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the 980Ti is all around better. It is faster, uses less power, overclocks better, and has more vram. I'd personally prefer the 980Ti, at least at the same price as the Fury. I remember the Fury launch, and I took the whole "overclocker's dream" in the context of this being a "heavy duty" built card (even though it is small), not necessarily that people will get huge OC's out of the box.

 

[pj-]

Like I said, I take that in the context that the card was built in a way that those that tinker with their hardware would enjoy this video card.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the 980Ti is all around better. It is faster, uses less power, overclocks better, and has more vram. I'd personally prefer the 980Ti, at least at the same price as the Fury. I remember the Fury launch, and I took the whole "overclocker's dream" in the context of this being a "heavy duty" built card (even though it is small), not necessarily that people will get huge OC's out of the box.

In case you missed the quote..

"you're going to be able to overclock this thing like no tomorrow"

Assuming English if your first language (kudos if it's not), there's no reasonable way to interpret that sentence other than you will be able to get huge OCs. Why would an overclocker care that a card is "heavy duty" if the end result is mediocre overclocking? The only reason to care about those things is in relation to the overclocks they allow.

 

[Shmee]

I agree that from what I hear, Fury X does not OC well. Fury I am not sure about, the unlocking is a bonus sometimes, but still to my understanding it does not OC very well, though I have not tried with the one I have. Well, sometimes companies just give you BS. AMD is not an exception, though I had kinda hoped they would be.

 

[ZipSpeed]

I was only able to get to 1100 MHz (5% OC) on my R9 Nitro Fury. Technically it was a bit over 5% but I dialed back to 5% to ensure 24/7 stability. Cranking up the voltage didn't help either. That said, the 1440p performance for the dollar is fantastic for what I paid and I have no regrets.

 

[n0x1ous]

my fury X is unstable at anything over stock speeds regardless of how much voltage i add.

 

[crisium]

I never bothered to properly find a max OC for mine. 1150MHz crashed no matter how much voltage, 1100MHz was stable (minor voltage bump), but created too much heat so I dialed it back a bit and never bothered to find the true max OC, somewhere inbetween. 1100-1160 is the range one can typically expect, but it's very lottery dependent to get past that at all (1200+ is a very golden sample), and on stock voltage often 1100MHz is unattainable.

 

[AtenRa]

Personally the only Fiji that wasnt disappointing was the Nano and that was too expensive at launch for what it was offering. Nano could be the best 28nm card if it was available day one and at $549 to compete against GTX980. I have said this before, personally I wouldnt even bother to release the Fury X. Fury at $499 and Nano at $549 would be more competitive against GTX980 and could sell more volume.