• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Fury X Reviews

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doing better in Unity while falling behind in Tomb Raider, SoM and BF4, who is optimizing for whom?

And with a difference of 279Mhz on the core clock!
 
gamervivek said:
Doing better in Unity while falling behind in Tomb Raider, SoM and BF4, who is optimizing for whom?

And with a difference of 279Mhz on the core clock!
Click to expand...


It's all about them core clocks :sneaky:. Anyway , those who has it are going to wait for a mature driver and ability to increase the voltage once its updated in the afterburner software , just like the 290/290X vs 780/780ti
 
desprado said:
G1 GTX 980 TI SLI vs Fury X 4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJYWXHOUoFY

Fact GTX 980 TI>>>>>>Fury X even at 4K.
Click to expand...

So basically a highly OC 980Ti model is trading blows with Fury X in SLI vs CF.

Not what you were expecting there? lol

Versus reference cards, CF Fury X stomps on SLI 980Ti and even Titan X at 4k. Go check out hardware.fr, digitalstorm and tweaktown, only 3 sites so far did CF vs SLI and they all found CF pwning SLI at 4k.
 
3DVagabond said:
I would say wait for Cat 15.20 before deciding. I believe the benefits will justify the wait.
Click to expand...
AMD wont release a new driver till end of this AMD which was said by AMD Matt.While, same people was saying when nvidia released GTX 980 Ti and claiming that Fury X will be 20% or 40% faster than Titan X so now you are welcome to reality so advice him base on reality not on fanboyism thank you.
 
desprado said:
AMD wont release a new driver till end of this AMD which was said by AMD Matt.While, same people was saying when nvidia released GTX 980 Ti and claiming that Fury X will be 20% or 40% faster than Titan X so now you are welcome to reality so advice him base on reality not on fanboyism thank you.
Click to expand...

I would wait for Win 10 to be released at the end of the month and see how current hardware (From both AMD and NV) performs (with new Win 10 drivers), then decide.
 
If you absolutely want to get a new GPU right now at $650 a stock highly OCed 980Ti is a no brainer choice.

If you can wait then wait for it, to see how future performance will be on both cards.
 
casiofx said:
If you absolutely want to get a new GPU right now at $650 a stock highly OCed 980Ti is a no brainer choice.

If you can wait then wait for it, to see how future performance will be on both cards.
Click to expand...

I can remember the exact same type of comment made about the 680. In the end though, the 7970 was the better purchase. Currently there is virtually no performance difference in neutral games. So, that's more or less a wash. There is good evidence from the last few generations that AMD will out perform nVidia's offerings in the future.
 
3DVagabond said:
I can remember the exact same type of comment made about the 680. In the end though, the 7970 was the better purchase. Currently there is virtually no performance difference in neutral games. So, that's more or less a wash. There is good evidence from the last few generations that AMD will out perform nVidia's offerings in the future.
Click to expand...
It depends, people who upgrade whenever a new generation of flagships doesn't really care about that.

For users who hold their card for a long time then 7970 is better.

7970 does have VRAM size advantage against 680. But HBM limited 4GB memory gave Nvidia's the bigger VRAM advantage now. Unless Fury X can overturn the performance deficit by being able to overclock alot via voltage unlock. The performance advantage of 10-30% held by heavily overclocked 980Ti really hits AMD hard.

A 680 overclocked performance wasn't that big of a difference compared to HD7970 overclocked. So even if Fury X improves the performance, 980Ti still have some performance lead's headroom left against that.

Don't get me wrong, I liked AMD, absolutely loved my R9 290 Tri-X. But if I'm going to buy a top of the line card now it'll be 980Ti non-ref.
 
Of course, your choice. I just don't see it as a no brainer. People didn't have to hang on to their 780/780 ti very long for Hawaii to beat it pretty bad. nVidia's O/C'ing has been touted as far back as the 680. In the end, it hasn't helped. And it's not Tahiti's or Hawaii's VRAM advantage that has allowed it to mature better. Bandwidth, is more likely having a bigger effect and Fury has that in spades.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying except for the no brainer part.
 
I think DX12 will put Fury X more in line with 980tis and Titan X at lower resolutions. I doubt AMD will optimize their DX11 CPUs bottlenecks right now (however it has done it for a few games like bioshock.. it was a disaster in the 7970 era, right now their GPUs shine at that game).
In the end the GPU is almost the same as GM200, but it cant OC that high.
 
3DVagabond said:
Of course, your choice. I just don't see it as a no brainer. People didn't have to hang on to their 780/780 ti very long for Hawaii to beat it pretty bad. nVidia's O/C'ing has been touted as far back as the 680. In the end, it hasn't helped. And it's not Tahiti's or Hawaii's VRAM advantage that has allowed it to mature better. Bandwidth, is more likely having a bigger effect and Fury has that in spades.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying except for the no brainer part.
Click to expand...
Back then R9 290 cards were $400 while 780Tis were $650. two thirds of the price with performance that wasn't that far off, AMD cards held as great value. You got more VRAM as well.

But now Fury X is the same price as 980Ti, this isn't the same thing anymore.
 
Hypothetical to the people who bought GTX 980 Ti already:

What level of performance does Fury X have to hit for you to regret your purchase? (This includes waiting for the new driver, and I guess Win10, and possibly for a non-whining pump)?

As someone who got tired of waiting, I think it would have to hit +10% performance. If it just equals GTX 980 Ti, I think I'd have no regrets.

Now, if AMD had that at launch, I'd have bought a Fury X and RMA'd it until I got a whine-free pump. That card is just so sexy.
 
casiofx said:
Back then R9 290 cards were $400 while 780Tis were $650. two thirds of the price with performance that wasn't that far off, AMD cards held as great value. You got more VRAM as well.

But now Fury X is the same price as 980Ti, this isn't the same thing anymore.
Click to expand...

That was way to brief. The mining craze hit 290 cards pretty much by December. Stock was depleted and when it came back 290 was already going for more than the price cut 780's. Hell, it was getting almost to the point a 290 Ref was costing as much as a 780 Ti.

People seem to forget the Bitmining craze when they think back at the 290/290X prices. Because it was TERRIBLE. I keep linking this Anandtech article:

http://anandtech.com/show/7758/radeon-r9-290x-retail-prices-hit-900

This was in February 2014:
This of course is some $350 over the 290X’s original launch price of $550, a 64% price bump. Meanwhile the Radeon R9 290 has been similarly affected, with 290 cards starting at $600, $200 (50%) over MSRP.
Click to expand...

290X launched, I hated the ref cooler. Waited for custom cards, watched stock go zero. Then price hike, by April 2014 I got tired of waiting and snagged a Lightning 780 for $450. Meanwhile a 290 was still ~$500 at the time.

EDIT: At least for the time when 290/290X were fresh on the market and +6 months. Then the bubble burst and the value plummeted as people were unloading used cards. Then it was a golden time to buy 290X, going between $250-350 with rebates and games. I remember missing the $260 290X lightning (after rebates and selling vouchers) and kicking myself.
 
railven said:
That was way to brief. The mining craze hit 290 cards pretty much by December. Stock was depleted and when it came back 290 was already going for more than the price cut 780's. Hell, it was getting almost to the point a 290 Ref was costing as much as a 780 Ti.

People seem to forget the Bitmining craze when they think back at the 290/290X prices. Because it was TERRIBLE. I keep linking this Anandtech article:

http://anandtech.com/show/7758/radeon-r9-290x-retail-prices-hit-900

This was in February 2014:


290X launched, I hated the ref cooler. Waited for custom cards, watched stock go zero. Then price hike, by April 2014 I got tired of waiting and snagged a Lightning 780 for $450. Meanwhile a 290 was still ~$500 at the time.

EDIT: At least for the time when 290/290X were fresh on the market and +6 months. Then the bubble burst and the value plummeted as people were unloading used cards. Then it was a golden time to buy 290X, going between $250-350 with rebates and games. I remember missing the $260 290X lightning (after rebates and selling vouchers) and kicking myself.
Click to expand...
Only in US, price was stable in my country.
 
3DVagabond said:
Of course, your choice. I just don't see it as a no brainer. People didn't have to hang on to their 780/780 ti very long for Hawaii to beat it pretty bad. nVidia's O/C'ing has been touted as far back as the 680. In the end, it hasn't helped. And it's not Tahiti's or Hawaii's VRAM advantage that has allowed it to mature better. Bandwidth, is more likely having a bigger effect and Fury has that in spades.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying except for the no brainer part.
Click to expand...

Good that you brought that up, remember back during the 780 vs R290/X time, when lots of members here touted the 780s ability to OC (Balla!) as the main factor in why the 780 was superior to the R290 and likewise for the 780Ti to the R290X. How it quickly changes and GCN leaves Kepler in the dust.

People who think 980Ti with its 6gb vram has more future proofing fail to understand that DX12 is made with Mantle as a foundation and has mostly Mantle-like features. GCN being the core that future APIs were designed for, as well as cross-platform developers cater to due to consoles... obviously GCN is the more future proof uarch.

In regards to vram, none of these GPUs are capable of running playable fluid settings where 4 vs 6GB vram matters. Even in dual-GPU configs, turning on 4x MSAA at 4K kills performance in newer titles (GTA V) while older titles don't stress vram (Tomb Raider, Metro etc).
 
Silverforce11 said:
Good that you brought that up, remember back during the 780 vs R290/X time, when lots of members here touted the 780s ability to OC (Balla!) as the main factor in why the 780 was superior to the R290 and likewise for the 780Ti to the R290X. How it quickly changes and GCN leaves Kepler in the dust.

People who think 980Ti with its 6gb vram has more future proofing fail to understand that DX12 is made with Mantle as a foundation and has mostly Mantle-like features. GCN being the core that future APIs were designed for, as well as cross-platform developers cater to due to consoles... obviously GCN is the more future proof uarch.

In regards to vram, none of these GPUs are capable of running playable fluid settings where 4 vs 6GB vram matters. Even in dual-GPU configs, turning on 4x MSAA at 4K kills performance in newer titles (GTA V) while older titles don't stress vram (Tomb Raider, Metro etc).
Click to expand...

You know what else had AMD/ATI at the helm leading the charge? DX9 with unified Shaders. DX11 with tessellation.

Whomever NV has employed, they manage to pull a rabbit out of their hat. And this is coming from a long time Radeon user who would justify his cards being slower by "at least it cost less." When the cost equation flew out the window, I had to realize - for everything AMD does right and good, Nvidia does it better.

FFXIV is now a Gameworks game. I have no doubt in my mind it will cripple performance on a Radeon. If NV keeps snagging games like this, my decision to support NV and it's anti-consumer/gaming/etc ways become easier to allow. Yes, I'd rather have an eco-system where I'm not buying PC exclusives (Extreme) but AMD isn't doing jack to give me confidence in buying them.

Just in this thread:
"Wait for the new driver."
"Wait for Win10."

I guess I can keep waiting for AMD to beat NV, but it seems when that happens NV releases a new card that repeats the cycle. I waited for custom cooler 290X and then got shafted on the price. I waited for Fury X to launch then got shafted on performance and hell I'm so glad I'm not suffering through these pump issues (as someone who has pushed towards reducing noise levels, I'm so happy where my rig is now and a ref GTX 980 Ti @ 70% is pushing it).

But everyone else - keep waiting. AMD will have it's day in the sun! Just you see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top