Fury/X are back in stock at newegg

[RussianSensation]

I will add though that while on average 980 seems close to a Fury, when the 980 actually loses, it loses by HUGE deficits. On the contrary, when 980 wins, outside of GW titles, it's barely a win.

Fury vs. 980

Shadow of Mordor - 4K
50 vs. 41 fps (+22% faster)

GTA V 1440P
70 vs. 61 fps (+15% faster)

But notice what happens at 4K in GTA V:
38 vs. 31 fps (+23% faster)

Tomb Raider 1440P
120 vs. 100 fps (+20% faster)

But again at 4K this lead extends:
58 vs. 46 fps (+26% faster)

Thief 1440P
67 vs. 52 fps (+29% faster)

Even in Bioshock Infinite, a game that heavily favours NV at 4K, the 980 loses:
50 vs. 43 fps (+16% faster)

BF Hardline 1440P:
56 vs. 49 fps (+14% faster)

Alien Isolation 4K:
54 vs. 40 fps (+35% faster)

Hitman Absolution 1440P:
79 vs. 67 fps (+18% faster)

But at 4K things once again get way worse for the 980:
41 vs. 33 fps (+24% faster)

All of this tells us some key information:

1) When 980 loses, it has no hope of beating a Fury since the loses are too great.
2) Even if we overclock the 980 to 1.5Ghz (or 23% from reference boost), the Fury can also be overclocked which again means 980 can't catch it
3) 980's performance keeps falling off at 4K and the gap between the 2 cards grows as GPU demands increase. That tells us that Fury should in theory age better with time (aka GTX680 vs. HD7970Ghz situation)
4) It seems some of Fury's potential isn't fully tapped since the DX11 AMD driver isn't allowing the card to stretch its legs at lower resolutions. Some people though keep cherry-picking this point and concluding that 980 and Fury are "close in performance." Fact of the matter is for 1080P gaming, R9 290/290X/970 are far better values and 980/Fury are better suited for 1440P gaming, especially given their product pricing positioning. Thing is though with DX12 and more demanding games, or for gamers with 1440P screens, Fury really starts to pull away from the 980. Of course we need to wait a bit for some DX12 games to show up to test this theory.

But, if AMD priced the Fury $25-50 within 980, it would be a clear winner because as an actual videocard, the Fury is more powerful, no doubt about it. The problem is the Fury at $550 is too closely priced to the 980Ti. This is really what's putting a damp on it. Just my 2 cents. Also, we've seen in the past how NV's loyal customer base will actually pay MORE for similar or worse performance (680 vs. 1Ghz 7970, HD7970Ghz/280X vs. GTX770 2GB, esp. 280X vs. 770 4GB, R9 290 vs. 780). The R9 290 vs. GTX960 is the most epic example that even if AMD prices its card $50-75 with a massive 50-60% performance lead and double the VRAM, people still buy NV. That is the most frightening situation for AMD currently positioning Fury $50-100 above a 980.

 

[3DVagabond]

@RussianSensation: Until there's more stock all of this is academic. They are selling all of them they can make and many retailers are actually getting a premium above MSRP. Add to that, there are many people who are willing to pay an additional premium above the perf/$ increase (brand preference, HBM tech, trusting AMD's perf will increase relative to nVidia as it has the last couple of gens, hate nVidia's "Apple like" practices, hedging DX12/Vulkan performance will favor AMD, etc...). Then there are those who want Freesync over Gsync and the savings there.

There's a reason prices have dropped on the competing nVidia cards and as I said, retailers are getting above MSRP for the Fury/X.

 

[DustinBrowder]

1. No one says you need to use WC with the card. It still has an exceptional cooler. It's able to maintain 76C at 1.53Ghz overclock.

2. It has very high quality components, so not just a random reference 980.

3. Why would we not count the $30 rebate?

4. Sapphire Fury is about 17% faster at 1440P vs. a reference 980 in one of the most unbiased reviews that has few GameWorks games like ProjectCARS, etc.

But 1.5Ghz overclock vs. 1216mhz reference boost means the 980 has the potential to gain 20% higher performance easily negating the entire advantage of Fury on average.

All of a sudden for very similar performance, the Fury costs $100 more; and we didn't even take into account selling the MGS game for $15-20.

Here is another major problem with the Fury -- it sits in no-man's land.

>> After-market XFX R9 290 sells for $240 on Newegg, but shockingly the Fury's price/performance is simply awful:

Fury vs. R9 290 OC (after-market 290)
18% faster at 1080P (normal)
25% faster at 1080P (high)
24% faster at 1440P (normal)
28% faster at 1440P (high)
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/...t/4/#diagramm-rating-2560-1440-hohe-qualitaet

All of that for 2.2-2.3X the price! Frankly, chuck the 980 into the same overpriced garbage pile too. It's also overpriced as hell at $450-500.

Between 290/290X/390 and 980Ti, Fury and Fury X make no sense for anyone but the most hardcore AMD fan/or someone who wants to have the most cutting edge tech for fun.

In Canada, it gets FAR worse for AMD.

Newegg.ca

Sapphire Fury Tri-X = $790 + $12 s/h + tax = $906 CDN (or at least $685 USD)

EVGA GTX980 = $670 CDN + $10 s/h + tax - $10 rebate = $758 CDN

Almost $150 less.

But here is the real killer:

Zotac AMP! 980Ti for $850 CDN + $10 s/h + tax = $972 CDN

vs.

We have:

Sapphire Fury OC = 100%
Reference 980Ti = 114%
Zotac AMP! 980Ti = (100%/ 92%)*114% => extrapolated 123.9% = 124%

That means based on Newegg.ca prices, for $66 Canadian more, an after-market 980Ti is 24% faster out of the box at 1440P, comes with a free game and has 50% more VRAM as a bonus, HDMI 2.0 as a bonus, Shadow Play as a bonus, PhysX as a bonus, and on top of that the 24% faster 980Ti and regular Fury use a similar amount of power.

Zotac AMP! 980Ti = 230W avg / 261W peak
Sapphire Fury Tri-X = 230W avg / 256W peak

And then this: Sapphire Fury has 2 year warranty vs. 3 years for the Zotac card.

This is a complete destruction for AMD, losing in nearly every metric except for noise levels. As far as I am concerned, if out of the box you are 24% slower, that means Fury should cost at least 24% less than an after-market 980Ti. At these Canadian prices, the standard Fury X is nothing but a rip-off too.

That means Fury should cost about $646 Canadian, not $789 Canadian ($850 Zotac 980Ti * (1-24%) = $646), so really $649.99 CDN. :ninja:

IMHO, the best bet now in Canada is to get a used solid R9 290 (can easily find one for $290), and hold out to 16nm GPUs. The Fury/FuryX/980 -- none of these cards represent a solid value as far as gaming performance goes given their ludicrous prices.

Even if Pascal is a major flop and it only delivers 50% higher performance/watt instead or 70-100%, GTX970 will move from 81% --> 121.5%, thus beating every single card out today.

In the US, there are some incredible deals like $240 after-market 290, $290 R9 290X and $250 GTX970 SC. With prices like these, I am surprised anyone is even considering the GTX980 or the Fury. Arguing which is better between these 2 cards is almost pointless since both are a waste of $ frankly and neither has 6-8GB of VRAM either.

AMD Fury is on average 25% faster than GTX 980 from your own numbers.

25% faster speed, cooler card, HBM, more future proof, etc... all for $70 more for your minor sample, most GTX 980 still go for $550 and Newegg isn't the only market place, newegg has a 40% market share in the USA, but they are not available anywhere in Europe, Asia or other markets.

The GTX 980 is easily $550 at most places, which means its the same price as the Fury, few select deals here and there don't matter. Most of those deals are usually over in few days anyways.

 

[Mondozei]

At 1080p, the resolution most people play at, a 980 blows the Fury out of the water with OC included.
Even at 1440p, it's getting really close(OC included). And it's cheaper.

Those who reference HBM etc are missing the point. What matters is final performance, not a specsheet.

The 390X is the real standout star, it overclocks decently and is within a whisker of the 980 at 1440p(at 1080p it loses, of course).
Even when both are overclocked, the 390X is quite close to the 980. It's not for nothing why HARDOCP stated that they felt the 390X was "too close for comfort" to the Fury non-X.

And anyway, the Sapphire version that Anandtech review of the non-X version of Fury was so damn quiet and the cooling was so efficient, so that water-cooling is in a sense less necessary. This is especially the case for Fury, which basically doesn't overclock whatsoever.

 

[3DVagabond]

At 1080p, the resolution most people play at, a 980 blows the Fury out of the water with OC included.
Even at 1440p, it's getting really close(OC included). And it's cheaper.

Those who reference HBM etc are missing the point. What matters is final performance, not a specsheet.

The 390X is the real standout star, it overclocks decently and is within a whisker of the 980 at 1440p(at 1080p it loses, of course).
Even when both are overclocked, the 390X is quite close to the 980. It's not for nothing why HARDOCP stated that they felt the 390X was "too close for comfort" to the Fury non-X.

And anyway, the Sapphire version that Anandtech review of the non-X version of Fury was so damn quiet and the cooling was so efficient, so that water-cooling is in a sense less necessary. This is especially the case for Fury, which basically doesn't overclock whatsoever.

In most games Fury beats the 980, even @ 1080. The 390X trades blows with the 980 and has plenty of gas for 1080 gaming.

 

[soccerballtux]

maybe they were planning to clock at 800mhz and then let you overclock to 1200.
Then, they had to clock at 1050 and were only able to clock to 1125.

 

[DustinBrowder]

At 1080p, the resolution most people play at, a 980 blows the Fury out of the water with OC included.
Even at 1440p, it's getting really close(OC included). And it's cheaper.

Those who reference HBM etc are missing the point. What matters is final performance, not a specsheet.

The 390X is the real standout star, it overclocks decently and is within a whisker of the 980 at 1440p(at 1080p it loses, of course).
Even when both are overclocked, the 390X is quite close to the 980. It's not for nothing why HARDOCP stated that they felt the 390X was "too close for comfort" to the Fury non-X.

And anyway, the Sapphire version that Anandtech review of the non-X version of Fury was so damn quiet and the cooling was so efficient, so that water-cooling is in a sense less necessary. This is especially the case for Fury, which basically doesn't overclock whatsoever.

Based on what? Nvidia's own benches? If you look at Guru3d, hexus, etc... the Fury is 20% faster at 1440p (the real resolution you would play at with a $500+ GPU, you won't buy $500+ to play on a 720p monitor.

At 4k its 25% faster than the 980, while the R9 390x trades blows with the 980 at ALL resolutions, while being quite cheaper.

With the Fury though you get a faster, cooler card that consumes less and has HBM.

 

[railven]

Based on what? Nvidia's own benches? If you look at Guru3d, hexus, etc... the Fury is 20% faster at 1440p (the real resolution you would play at with a $500+ GPU, you won't buy $500+ to play on a 720p monitor.

At 4k its 25% faster than the 980, while the R9 390x trades blows with the 980 at ALL resolutions, while being quite cheaper.

With the Fury though you get a faster, cooler card that consumes less and has HBM.

And that's the problem.

@1080p a buyer is better covered with a cheaper 390/390X or even a 980 if they so wanted to.

@1440 they are better just dropping the extra $100 for a GTX 980 Ti (sell the game if it isn't their liking) and it's almost just $80 more which consumes even less and has more VRAM.

@4K I wouldn't recommend a single card and you are now in multi-GPU which is hands down 2x Fury, and niche.

But of the most common scenarios, Fury just comes up short and Fury X is just dead in the water. In the US you only have two Fury's to pick from and they are $560 and $570, where as you can get a factory OC'ed 980 Ti with custom cooler at $660, with a game.

The Fury/Fury X are hard to justify outside of "I need an AMD card for reasons."