AMD R9 Fury X reviews!

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
blue1512: It seems that the HBMs on FuryX are only locked by driver. It DID be overclocked to 600 MHz.
Click to expand...

E9kT5x.jpg
Click to expand...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1547314/...nano-x-x2-fiji-owners-club/1650#post_24103000

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/615...-flag-ship-graphics-card-overclocking-results
 
Last edited:
V

.vodka

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2014
1,203
1,538
136
Power2.jpg


Pretty sure the rest of the cards here would also put out horrible power consumptions numbers in furmark. As to why only Fury CF has furmark numbers, I don't know. No one should fall for that.


When comparing the relevant numbers, Fury consumes less than 290/390x while performing much better, up to a 980Ti, sometimes beating a TX depending on what review you see. Can't see anything wrong with that.
 
crashtech

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,695
2,294
146
Another aspect that damages the credibility of the eTeknix tests is the absence of 980ti SLI, which has been found to have less than optimal scaling due to heat issues.

And what is up with doing Furmark on only one card?
 
railven

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
.vodka said:
Power2.jpg


Pretty sure the rest of the cards here would also put out horrible power consumptions numbers in furmark. As to why only Fury CF has furmark numbers, I don't know. No one should fall for that.


When comparing the relevant numbers, Fury consumes less than 290/390x while performing much better, up to a 980Ti, sometimes beating a TX depending on what review you see. Can't see anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...

crashtech said:
Another aspect that damages the credibility of the eTeknix tests is the absence of 980ti SLI, which has been found to have less than optimal scaling due to heat issues.

And what is up with doing Furmark on only one card?
Click to expand...

EDIT #2: Here:
Here’s where things get a little interesting. Running our standard benchmark stress test, which is enough to simulate gaming; produced just 378W. When I checked the cards for usage, the first card was maxed out, but the second was only in about 20% use (judging by the LED indicators by the power connections). I then decided to turn to ol’ faithful and run Furmark. Even though Furmark shows 841W, your day to day use will likely be hugely less.
Click to expand...

If you read the article he says why they used FUrmark numbers. And why the CFX numbers are so odd.

Don't got the link, feel free to read what he wrote, basically:

For some odd reason the CFX showed 100% load on one card and 20% on the other, so we turned on Furmark. You won't get this but that's what it is.

EDIT: Do people actually not read reviews? Got one poster calling out a reviewer for the wrong site, and now two posters "why they do that?" I agree lack of SLI numbers makes it less useful as a comparative but your questions is answered right there in the page that pretty graph was taken from. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
crashtech

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,695
2,294
146
Pardon me, but I did read the article. Regardless of the ostensible reason, it's still an unfair way to compare something when one part is singled out for special treatment.

Edit: I should clarify that the reason it is unfair is that it results in a total lack of context for the one number presented. Putting all the other cards under the same test AND including 980ti SLI would have helped. Ultimately, the test is without real value.
 
Last edited:
Dresdenboy

Dresdenboy

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,730
554
136
citavia.blog.de
I don't know if it's been said already...

Somewhere I saw the Fury specs mentioning 4 triangles set up per clock, while the top Maxwells do 6 per clock. Digging further I found this nice discussion:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34022743

So it looks like the geometry engine is the bottleneck at lower resolutions. Higher resolutions (esp. 4K) hit the pixel fill rate bottleneck (also lower by 1/3 vs. 980 Ti). Finally some fps graphs had some spikes and most frames longer than 50ms were on the Fury X. This likely means that it has to refetch lots of textures into its RAM stacks. A driver update might help here.
 
E

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
Dresdenboy said:
I don't know if it's been said already...

Somewhere I saw the Fury specs mentioning 4 triangles set up per clock, while the top Maxwells do 6 per clock. Digging further I found this nice discussion:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34022743

So it looks like the geometry engine is the bottleneck at lower resolutions. Higher resolutions (esp. 4K) hit the pixel fill rate bottleneck (also lower by 1/3 vs. 980 Ti). Finally some fps graphs had some spikes and most frames longer than 50ms were on the Fury X. This likely means that it has to refetch lots of textures into its RAM stacks. A driver update might help here.
Click to expand...

The datas are wrong.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU15/1242
 
3

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
railven said:
Here’s where things get a little interesting. Running our standard benchmark stress test, which is enough to simulate gaming; produced just 378W. When I checked the cards for usage, the first card was maxed out, but the second was only in about 20% use (judging by the LED indicators by the power connections). I then decided to turn to ol’ faithful and run Furmark. Even though Furmark shows 841W, your day to day use will likely be hugely less.
Click to expand...

Seems that whatever their standard test is, crossfire is broken in it. Where's the mystery?
 
Glo.

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
5,930
4,991
136
monstercameron said:
You're kinda late.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry :(

;) I'm not here all the time.

I have had something to post here also, but then I thought that it would violate this part of forum rules. So I'll go to another thread with reviews.
 
S

sam_816

Senior member
Aug 9, 2014
432
0
76
Final8ty said:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7226/amd-radeon-r9-fury-video-cards-crossfire/index.html
Click to expand...
OMG!! :eek: & they are still using those unrefined drivers? i think the tdp and noise level can be curbed a little with better drivers.
I didn't think that we'd see this type of performance, with all of our games playable at 4K with over 100FPS average, except for Metro: Last Light. Battlefield 4 at 4K at 118FPS average is just amazing... something that the GTX Titan X offers, for $2000 compared to around $1300.

Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7226/amd-radeon-r9-fury-video-cards-crossfire/index8.html
Click to expand...
 
crashtech

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,695
2,294
146
High-end gamers are going to want to examine more forthcoming articles on Fury X Crossfire. We know for example that the card's close proximity is not an issue, yet Ryan saw some signs of just one card being CPU bound in some of the testing; this would be worse with two cards. Maybe with an OCed X99 hexa or octa, such a setup would be fully unleashed. I believe Tweaktown should have OCed thier 5820K for the tests, at stock a 4790K might have actually posted better numbers.
 
biostud

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,946
7,045
136
crashtech said:
High-end gamers are going to want to examine more forthcoming articles on Fury X Crossfire. We know for example that the card's close proximity is not an issue, yet Ryan saw some signs of just one card being CPU bound in some of the testing; this would be worse with two cards. Maybe with an OCed X99 hexa or octa, such a setup would be fully unleashed. I believe Tweaktown should have OCed thier 5820K for the tests, at stock a 4790K might have actually posted better numbers.
Click to expand...

Really interested to see what DX12 will do for multi GPU setups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom