• 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 R9 Fury reviews!

wand3r3r

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
Please post links.

[Anandtech]
http://www.anandtech.com/print/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus

[Computerbase]
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc-test/

[Digital Foundry]
4K Video Review, with frame-times @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jBjDIakZxc (very close to Fury X/980Ti)[/QUOTE]

[Guru3D]
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_r9_fury_strix_review,1.html

[HardOCP]
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review


[Hardware Cannucks]
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review.html

[Hothardware]
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-review



[Kitguru]
http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-tri-x-radeon-r9-fury-4gb/14/

[PCPer] (Also with crossfire Fury and Fury X)
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Sapphire-Radeon-R9-Fury-4GB-Review-CrossFire-Results

[Sweclockers]
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20792-amd-radeon-r9-fury-fran-asus-och-sapphire/17#content - Handy Performance Summary Chart!

[TechPowerUp]
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/1.html

[Toms Hardware]
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-amd-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-overclocked,4216.html
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
some of the reviews mention amd r9 fury in the charts. does that mean official benche scores or there will be a reference model available?
if i ever decide to buy the fury pro i'd rather put it in ek-wb and have a one slot wide and 7" long card in my system..
 
There's no ref models, it's all custom. I think they just lower clocks to simulate reference specs.

Edit: ASUS's model so far is my favorite, I like their implementation of TDP limits so that power viruses will no longer produce ridiculous power usage numbers. It maintains its clock speed, no throttling and uses less power.

75693.png


75694.png


Funny reading AT's review: "Far Cry 4 is another game that has traditionally favored AMD card, and as a result the R9 Fury looks quite good here."

Sorry but no. FC4 traditionally pwned AMD due to Ubisoft + GameWorks.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
There's no ref models, it's all custom. I think they just lower clocks to simulate reference specs.

Edit: ASUS's model so far is my favorite, I like their implementation of TDP limits so that power viruses will no longer produce ridiculous power usage numbers. It maintains its clock speed, no throttling and uses less power.
Click to expand...

and looks way sexy too(as compared to sapphire).
hothardware review said:
Sapphire’s Tri-X Radeon R9 Fury is only about 5% slower than the liquid-cooled Fury X.
Read more at http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-review#Sh2kQfQe31YvzxcD.99
Click to expand...
i think they just removed the noisy watercooler from fury x units and put their cooler on.. lol (jk)
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
Edit: ASUS's model so far is my favorite, I like their implementation of TDP limits so that power viruses will no longer produce ridiculous power usage numbers. It maintains its clock speed, no throttling and uses less power.
Click to expand...

Gotta keep it cool in your Furmark LAN parties?

I do wonder whether that's a variation in chip or card producing the delta in non-furmark scenarios though.
 
well, it beats the 290x/390x by a noticeable margin at a bit of a lower power consumption.

kind of a win, but pretty slim win given the high price.
 
Leaning towards the asus version (even though I heard their warranty replacement sucks), it looks much nicer.
 
Solid Card, ASUS looks really great. Performance wise it's much closer to 980ti than vanilla 980 and money wise is the other way around
 
xthetenth said:
Gotta keep it cool in your Furmark LAN parties?

I do wonder whether that's a variation in chip or card producing the delta in non-furmark scenarios though.
Click to expand...

Better PCB components, ASUS went with a higher quality power loadout as well as custom bios with a lower TDP limit so Fury will throttle clocks to prevent exceeding a set amount, like in Furmark. Works great because this is one of the few or only AMD GPU I've seen in recent years that has such low power compared to its peers in Furmark.

Total system power is ~47-60W above a 980 setup in gaming loads, or ~12-20% more power. For similar or more in performance gains. Basically the ASUS Fury is more power efficient than Maxwell 2. 😵

I don't normally like ASUS but damn they did an excellent job.
 
Last edited:
The Asus is the most appealing by far, that power consumption is kept in control.

Very important. Clever move.

can even be a safe guard if your psu is a bit on the edge
 
Essence_of_War said:
Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus

Load noise levels are really quite impressive.
Click to expand...


Wow.

What we have here then is the quietest high power air cooled card we have ever tested. In its OC configuration the Sapphire Tri-X card tops out at 38.2dB under Crysis 3, less than 2dB(A) above our noise floor and nearly 5dB quieter than the quiet R9 Fury X. Switching to its reference configuration drives noise levels down even further, to just 37.8dB(A). To put that in perspective, the Sapphire Tri-X under a gaming workload is as loud as the GTX 980 Ti is at idle. Simply put, these results are amazing.
Click to expand...
 
Almost as fast as the 'X' while being $100 cheaper. This is AMD's "970" for this generation. Good on them - I hope they sell a ton. :thumbsup:
 
@wand3r3r

Remember all the "Fiji needs water cooling cos its a power hungry...!"?

😀

Noise, temps, water cooling advantages** are no longer important metrics. The goal posts have shifted.

**Look at the multi-GPU tests, ref 980Ti throttling badly on open bench setups. PCPER just threw some of the best OC 980Ti custom cards at Fury X in a 2-3 GPU standoff and Fury X killed them, open bench setup where they perform their best!
 
Silverforce11 said:
@wand3r3r

Remember all the "Fiji needs water cooling cos its a power hungry...!"?

😀

Noise, temps, water cooling advantages** are no longer important metrics. The goal posts have shifted.

**Look at the multi-GPU tests, ref 980Ti throttling badly on open bench setups. PCPER just threw some of the best OC 980Ti custom cards at Fury X in a 2-3 GPU standoff and Fury X killed them, open bench setup where they perform their best!
Click to expand...

if hardocp did a review they say that, cant recomend nvidia as its to hot and loud.
you just dont see that happen tho.
reviewers dont get cards.
 
I'm amazed at those Fury results.

I wanted to get the Fury X for its amazing power and silence (after the pump fix) but for 100€ less and not much a perf drop, the Sapphire Fury manages to be more silent than the Fury X.

If I get this card it will be to game in 1440p, which is totally worth it.

This seems THE new card to get in price/performance ratio for high resolution.

I like the ASUS power results, but I don't like the noise results, the fans seem to be more agressive.
 
On one hand it beats the 980 in raw performance as well as perf/$$. Also, the Sapphire Tri-X is a cool and very quiet card. This would appear to be a huge win. Unfortunately, these tests were done against a reference 980. This is mind boggling, since there are many non-reference 980s that sit in the $520-$550 price bracket, and some of them are clocked over 1.250 GHZ. I cant help but wonder what happens when you put the $550 Fury up against a $540 GTX980 with a good cooler and a 1267MHz clock? Do any of these reviews answer that?
 
I'm wondering if the voltage will ever be unlocked. I'm curious if it's intentionally limited due to actual physical limitations (not much headroom, so why let cards fry), new policies, or if it's just a low priority in general.

If they add voltage neutering like NV as a feature I will be disappointed. I'll still reserve judgment until we get official confirmation.
 
sm625 said:
On one hand it beats the 980 in raw performance as well as perf/$$. Also, the Sapphire Tri-X is a cool and very quiet card. This would appear to be a huge win. Unfortunately, these tests were done against a reference 980. This is mind boggling, since there are many non-reference 980s that sit in the $520-$550 price bracket, and some of them are clocked over 1.250 GHZ. I cant help but wonder what happens when you put the $550 Fury up against a $540 GTX980 with a good cooler and a 1267MHz clock? Do any of these reviews answer that?
Click to expand...

See Sweclockers. They test Fury and 980 both max OC at 1440 over 10 games. The cards are very close, perhaps slightly favoring the Fury overall. I'd imagine at 1080 both OC that the 980 would be slightly favored in return.
 
Another interesting thing to note is that the sapphire card has a large air passthrough component to its design. One fan's airflow is almost totally unrestricted by a pcb, allowing air to pass completely through the fins unimpeded. Looking at the sub 38dB full load noise levels, I cant help but think that the reviewers downplayed the significance of this design. Who knew it would make such a huge difference. 38dB is insane for load noise! I think Sapphire should make a custom pcb that is as short as possible, so they can get even more air flowing like that. This is only possible due to the use of HBM. As far as I'm concerned, this is a total coup for the $500 card market. That level of noise makes me want to buy one.
 
Silverforce11 said:
There's no ref models, it's all custom. I think they just lower clocks to simulate reference specs.

Edit: ASUS's model so far is my favorite, I like their implementation of TDP limits so that power viruses will no longer produce ridiculous power usage numbers. It maintains its clock speed, no throttling and uses less power.

75693.png


75694.png


Funny reading AT's review: "Far Cry 4 is another game that has traditionally favored AMD card, and as a result the R9 Fury looks quite good here."

Sorry but no. FC4 traditionally pwned AMD due to Ubisoft + GameWorks.
Click to expand...

The Sapphire card is significantly quieter though, which is what I would prefer personally. I like how they have the blow through cooler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top