Fury/X are back in stock at newegg
- Thread starter soccerballtux
- Start date
n0x1ous
Platinum Member
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,574
- 252
- 126
If I had a product selling for 100 dollars and it's almost always oos... Why in God's name would I drop the price... I would raise it.
Harrod
Golden Member
- Apr 3, 2010
- 1,900
- 21
- 81
Be careful with TigerDirect, I ordered a Asus Fury X that said it was instock, when I called them they told me it would ship that last week of August. I ended up cancelling my order.
Eelectricity
Member
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I don't know what AMD is smoking this generation. One of the best after-market GTX980s that includes a waterblock built-in and a free game is going for $450. Even if one sells the game coupon for just $15, that makes it a $435 videocard vs. $550 for the cheapest Fury.
Even if we make the argument that AMD is selling out every Fury they can make right now, once the wave of early adopters has bought one, these cards will be sitting on the shelves, forcing AMD to drop prices in the next 5-6 months by a lot. That's not going to look good for their image but I bet they'll have no choice as I feel GTX980 will approach $399 with rebates by the holiday season.
Which is exactly why I'm waiting my friend!
Fury just isn't enough performance to justify the price at Fury or Fury X. The GTX 980 is SO CLOSE to $400 when you look through cards on newegg that why not? I don't even know max oc GTX 980 vs max oc Fury, but I bet that at that point, I would be VERY happy with a GTX 980. I know people have said hte GTX 980 is a horrid value... but $400, it gets very close to a Fury which is more expensive.
Then DSR, HDMI 2.0, OCing, Perf/watt, etc.
That's the problem for AMD. The GTX 980 is too close to the Fury in performance so it looks like ag ood value in that respect. IF you look at it from the 390/x perspective, you factor in DSR< HDMI 2.0, OC, Perf/Watt, etc. and you're still ok.
AMD needs to rethink pricing if it wants me to come there, otherwise, I'll get a GTX 980 and enjoy 4K DSR until AMD has a reasonably priced 4K VSR card. I really hope it doesn't come to that though, so hoping Fury price drops substantially soon in the next 4 months.
Edit: At $450 even, I'd say that GTX 980 has me interested if I had the stuff necessary to integrate it. But I don't so the WC is not as useful although I still think the value on that card is extraordinary.
I saw an EVGA SSC for $435. Not my first choice but again, such a good price given the Fury price that why not.
But I'm going to attempt to skip this gen all together if possible. I don't want to pay more than $250 for a 4K downsamplign capable card and that's what it looks like I have to do.
Last edited:
The Alias
Senior member
- Aug 22, 2012
- 646
- 58
- 91
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,677
- 6,250
- 126
As long as people are willing to Pay this higher Price, they should stick with it. They'll get extra revenue. When Stock starts building up, take a Price cut. Many will jump on the lower Price because they wanted but couldn't justify current prices. They will be criticized whatever they do, better to get the extra Cash now and bank it then to worry about optics.
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
They consider the 390x its competitor. it all "makes sense" based on prices and performance. Typically fury is faster than the 980. So why should we expect the same price? The 390x often trades with the 980, so why not look at that instead?
The Fury has no real competitor, that might be the issue. If there were a card from nvidia between the 980 and 980Ti then people would not be trying to match Fury up with the 980. If we expect Fiji to get better with driver support then 980 is nowhere near a Fury in terms of value.
Arachnotronic
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
I'd say Fury does have real competition -- factory OC'd 980s. The performance delta between stock Fury and stock 980 is, what? 8%? 10%?
Factory overclocked 980s should do very nicely against Fury.
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
Maybe. but it would be silly for AMD to be lowering their prices because nvidia is pressured by a better performing card (at stock speeds). Wouldn't help them either when the weaker card is close to a year old and already made money for nvidia. Why chase it?
A 980 at over 1500 MHz trades with a Fury. A plain aftermarket without the manual OC would still lose by a good margin.
Lol where are you getting that a GTX 980 at over 1500 Mhz trades? We can see the REFERENCE GTX 980 is only 8% or so behind. So no, I don't believe this to be true at all. Factory OCd GTX 980s, as previously stated, would be even with the Fury and that's the issue with the Fury right there.
Look, right now the pricing is great, but I'm saying once AMD actually has REAL stock, then what? No one is going to recommend purchasing the AMD lineup besides AMD fans.
Myself, I went from recommending mostly AMD, to only having the R9 390 as my only AMD recommendation(ignoring the GTX 960 bracket). GTX 980 Ti is too good of a chip and the R9 390x vs GTX 980, price is WAY TOO CLOSE to pick the R9 390x. I see GTX 980s that are $20 more than an R9 390x. OC the GTX 980 and I win there.
GTX 980 Ti vs Fury X? No brainer the GTX 980 Ti Factory OC cards before you OC are going to stomp all over it. For $20-40 over the Fury X, you get a masterpiece card in many instances.
So yes, when many gamers are purchasing based on youtube recommendations and blogs and whatever, AMD needs to get these guys on their side. Probably should be sending review samples out to more of these guys and also trying to make their products more competitive. Because right now, AMD's main problem is that neutral people like myself, who were recommending their products before are NOT now and when you've already dropped marketshare to very low points, you don't want to compound that with people abandoning ship.
AMD's only saving grace, even if poorly played, was the 8GB VRAM. That just allows the card to pick up so many more casual buyers.
There was a thread on it recently.
https://youtu.be/-BTpXQkFJMY
Oc'd 980 vs fury.
There's another one where they push the 980 to almost 1600 Mhz, I'll see if I can find it.
https://youtu.be/-BTpXQkFJMY
Oc'd 980 vs fury.
There's another one where they push the 980 to almost 1600 Mhz, I'll see if I can find it.
I see, I stand corrected then.
Still, that's a bad position to be in. Last gen, this was the R9 290x vs GTX 980 situation. Except with the GTX 980 was a lot more expensive.
This time around it's the GTX 980 vs Fury and the Fury is more expensive but it doesn't net you anything. Both will be indistinguishable at 1440p, and neither is playable at 4K and that's the problem.
Edit:
See conclusion of this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9cKZiJw6Pk
I don't watch or care about youtubers but a LOT of gamers do and this vid is EXACTLY what AMD needs. At the end of hte video, he can't recommend the GTX 970 of ANY variant, and says GTX vendors need to be worried. AMD had the potential to do this.
R9 390 is great where it is.
R9 390x... honestly don't know it's too close to the R9 390. It needs a lower price. At $400 instead of $420, it gets close enough to entice some R9 390 purchasers to step up. Combined with a coupon, it can easily get people to spend a little extra.
Fury. This needed to be at $500 and have HDMI 2.0. At $500, this would have flown off the shelves and been the card people raved about. Since AMD isn't hampering people with reference models the Fury would have stomped all over the GTX 980 in reviews while being at the same "price" and having "HBM". Instead, it's more expensive, the GTX 980s are cheaper, and have HDMI 2.0/other features.
Fury X.
As you can see with the 390x, the next step up isn't really enough performance to justify the price. Fury X just isn't enough against the GTX 980 Ti. The CLC loop cooler is AMD's saving grace here. At $600, I think this becomes far easier to justify. CLC + $50-70 cheaper and will you really notice the difference while gaming? And CF possibility later down the line if you're a very high end purchaser is far easier to manage.
I just think AMD outpriced and under delivered feature wise when it could have been a VERY competitive product stack.
Last edited:
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTpXQkFJMY
was based on that. Its hard to find that tested. Why would nobody recommend the Fury? It's faster, end of story. If you knew someone who didn't Overclock, you would recommend a 980? I know people like this who would only overclock if things got bad. I myself never ran my 970 beyond stock even though I knew and tested the max OC. For the resolutions most applicable to this lvl of card the fury is a much more solid choice.
980ti is good for now. Its a driver update faster at stock than a fury x. Wasn't denying its faster than a fury x most of the time.
at 1080p some statements are valid. At higher resolutions I am surprised how well the 390x (and 290x as well) does against the 980. Coulda sworn the 980 was destroying everything when it came out. If someone were to have 1080p and want to use VSR or DSR, AMD becomes even more valuable. a 390x costing less than a 980 and doing well against it is ok. I wanted it cheaper as well and was disappointed but we can't always be expecting AMD to sell for less when they have good cards. 390x vs 980 the pricing is perfect even if we don't like it (perfect relatively). It's in a perfect pricing position actually, no direct cost competitor and performance fits. What else would you buy for over $340 but consistently under $450? with 8GB of ram embarrassing both the 970 and 980.
I think if a neutral view is taken you would not really be saying AMD is in so bad a position. Their pricing fits stock clock performance and overclocks can reduce the impact of maxwell overclocks. The sentiment seems more like "how dare you price like you're selling good product?"
was based on that. Its hard to find that tested. Why would nobody recommend the Fury? It's faster, end of story. If you knew someone who didn't Overclock, you would recommend a 980? I know people like this who would only overclock if things got bad. I myself never ran my 970 beyond stock even though I knew and tested the max OC. For the resolutions most applicable to this lvl of card the fury is a much more solid choice.
980ti is good for now. Its a driver update faster at stock than a fury x. Wasn't denying its faster than a fury x most of the time.
at 1080p some statements are valid. At higher resolutions I am surprised how well the 390x (and 290x as well) does against the 980. Coulda sworn the 980 was destroying everything when it came out. If someone were to have 1080p and want to use VSR or DSR, AMD becomes even more valuable. a 390x costing less than a 980 and doing well against it is ok. I wanted it cheaper as well and was disappointed but we can't always be expecting AMD to sell for less when they have good cards. 390x vs 980 the pricing is perfect even if we don't like it (perfect relatively). It's in a perfect pricing position actually, no direct cost competitor and performance fits. What else would you buy for over $340 but consistently under $450? with 8GB of ram embarrassing both the 970 and 980.
I think if a neutral view is taken you would not really be saying AMD is in so bad a position. Their pricing fits stock clock performance and overclocks can reduce the impact of maxwell overclocks. The sentiment seems more like "how dare you price like you're selling good product?"
Last edited:
99.9% of people don't have liquid cooling solution, so the double cooling option is WORTHLESS. Even if they had, they wouldn't be using a GTX 580 for it, they'd be using GTX 580TI or Titan X.
The card goes for $479 without rebate, the game is nice, but its a niche game, having only been available on PS system mostly, so hardly a PC staple.
The Fury is also in general several percentage points faster than the GTX 580, cooler, has HBM memory.
Ya sure... a "Neutral view". Because I'm not a neutral owner with an HD7950 right now rihgt? Surely I must be an Nvidia fanboy for saying the Nvidia option is better. You talk about VSR. Ok great. GTX 980 can do 4K DSR, or whatever DSR it wants. 390x has 1800p VSR and can't go higher. Yes, this is something I've thought about a lot as a person who wanted 4K VSR you get more features out of the GTX 980. Both are the same performance, but the GTX 980 has HDMI 2.0, DSR that goes higher than 1800p, etc. The 390x is in a VERY poor position vs the GTX 980.
R9 390 vs GTX 970? That's a much better fight.
That video was already posted in the thread by the way, it literally makes it an even WORSE case scenario for the Fury. It proves my point perfectly, that I'll pick up a GTX 980 on sale over a R9 390x. The ONLY thing that has me still wanting to go AMD is VSR looks crisper than DSR to me and I use that only.
But I'll see what the used market bestows me as I wait. The fact that the 390x locks you out of 4k, just because, is something that if Nvidia did people would be calling for their heads. AMD, their marketshare is so small at this point the number of people it effects is actually so small its neglible. not to mention their subreddit is blocked so you can see less complaints.
AMD is truly lucky that I like VSR that much that I'll wait til the next gen of cards to see how both perform before making a decision. Although Fury is an option if the price drops to a reasonable amount. I just want the 4K option...
Last edited:
Lol....... Wow.... you're grasping hard at straws.... You might also want to learn the names of the cards in play right now and since when was simply having HBM a bonus?
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
not being neutral doesn't mean being a fanboy. If you have a generally negative perception of AMDs position, that's not neutral.
That complaint of yours is funny. One would think it would be simple to buy a 4k monitor with DP and a compatible card, yet you keep complaining about HDMI 2.0 and 4K VSR. I was thinking 1440p VSR/DSR for 1080p screens, I would not do 4K because that would just be asking for trouble in modern games. For what benefit? 1440 because the performance benchmarks look decent at that resolution. For older or less demanding games you have a point
If you set the 980 to 4K and the 290x/390x to 1800p... you'd have a better experience on the AMD card. Sure its a number some would like higher, but it's not that big a deal.
Did you say VSR looks better than DSR? at 1800p vs 4K? If so whats the issue?
Last edited:
That's the point isn't it? You have to purchase into the AMD setup. The Nvidia setup allows you to use DP or HDMI. AMD limits you to DP only. Just ANOTHER reason the GTX 980 is a better choice over the 390x.
I get it, you like AMD products, I don't like or care about any brand. I just tell it how it currently is. Currently, AMD is behind on recent developments. On the 290x front, it didn't have to worry about that as much. But now with HDMI 2.0 and downsamplign coming up, AMD finds itself behind in those metrics. AMD is behind in a lot of metrics outside of raw performance and that's what hurts the card.
It's the primary issue with the Fury X, and when people say "Well maybe drivers will improve the card." No one is paying $650 now to HOPE that the card will be better.
Maybe by Christmas time things will change but right now AMD doesn't hold the winning cards in many situations.
Edit:Right now AMD is on even pricing as Nvidia and that means it needs to bring more to the table. AMD had a price cut but you got good performance and maybe lost features, or lost performance but kept features. Here, price the same, perf the same, and features are not. So I cant pick the R9 390x over the gtx 980.
Lucky for AMD, the R9 390 vs GTX 970 is the price bracket that will matter more and the better value.
I get it, you like AMD products, I don't like or care about any brand. I just tell it how it currently is. Currently, AMD is behind on recent developments. On the 290x front, it didn't have to worry about that as much. But now with HDMI 2.0 and downsamplign coming up, AMD finds itself behind in those metrics. AMD is behind in a lot of metrics outside of raw performance and that's what hurts the card.
It's the primary issue with the Fury X, and when people say "Well maybe drivers will improve the card." No one is paying $650 now to HOPE that the card will be better.
Maybe by Christmas time things will change but right now AMD doesn't hold the winning cards in many situations.
Edit:Right now AMD is on even pricing as Nvidia and that means it needs to bring more to the table. AMD had a price cut but you got good performance and maybe lost features, or lost performance but kept features. Here, price the same, perf the same, and features are not. So I cant pick the R9 390x over the gtx 980.
Lucky for AMD, the R9 390 vs GTX 970 is the price bracket that will matter more and the better value.
Last edited:
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
As far as monitors go you aren't likely to find a 4K one without display port. HDMI 2.0 is inadequate for those monitors anyway if they pass 60 hz. Not so much buying into AMDs setup as trying to box yourself into a fringe case. Specifically a new 4K TV/monitor with only HDMI 2.0.
What HDMI 2.0 TV do you have? No point asking that for monitors since they are almost guaranteed to also have DP.
Ultimately these two things you are stuck on are not deal breakers for the vast majority. Especially hdmi 2.0
Fury X has qualities that can mitigate the <10% performance difference. Takes heat out of the case, smaller form factor, newer technology.
I don't like AMD. I currently prefer their GPUs to nvidia's. I will probably be laughing if the 980 ends up where the 780 is now. If the 980ti ends up like the 780ti as well.
What HDMI 2.0 TV do you have? No point asking that for monitors since they are almost guaranteed to also have DP.
Ultimately these two things you are stuck on are not deal breakers for the vast majority. Especially hdmi 2.0
Fury X has qualities that can mitigate the <10% performance difference. Takes heat out of the case, smaller form factor, newer technology.
I don't like AMD. I currently prefer their GPUs to nvidia's. I will probably be laughing if the 980 ends up where the 780 is now. If the 980ti ends up like the 780ti as well.
I think the past 3 generations of graphic cards have all sucked. People are being misled and lied to with useless "features" and "lower" power draw, but in the aggregate its meaningless.
For example the whole power consumption bullshit. A $400+ GPU that already consumes 300W would hardly make any real life difference if its 30W more and less than the competition.
Just buy a light bulb from 70W instead of 100W and whoala you've saved energy! Realistically even if you game 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30W difference would be maybe a $4-5 dollars difference over a year!
Even actual real benefits like 4k are pretty much meaningless now. No movie, no TV series, no video content is created for that resolution, even games are useless at 4k resolution. There is ZERO difference between the textures used for 4k or 1080p!
I can understand if 4k resolution used bigger textures for better overall quality, but that is just not the case.
So what 4k is is just the viewing size.
For example the whole power consumption bullshit. A $400+ GPU that already consumes 300W would hardly make any real life difference if its 30W more and less than the competition.
Just buy a light bulb from 70W instead of 100W and whoala you've saved energy! Realistically even if you game 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30W difference would be maybe a $4-5 dollars difference over a year!
Even actual real benefits like 4k are pretty much meaningless now. No movie, no TV series, no video content is created for that resolution, even games are useless at 4k resolution. There is ZERO difference between the textures used for 4k or 1080p!
I can understand if 4k resolution used bigger textures for better overall quality, but that is just not the case.
So what 4k is is just the viewing size.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
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.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter