Fury X voltage adjustment now available

[tviceman]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X_Overvoltage/2.html

There you go Fury X owners. Go get you some. Article says performance increases linearly at half the percentage of clock rate increases. Max performance/power was about 1220mhz, 10% performance improvement, and power draw increases by nearly 150 watts.

In this graph I'm showing full system power draw during testing. This test has clock speeds fixed at 1100 MHz for better comparison. As you can see, power ramps up very quickly, much faster than maximum clock or performance. From stock to +144 mV, the power draw increases by 27%, while overclocking potential goes up only by 5%, and real-life performance increases by only 3%.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Wow, that power usage is nuts.

 

[3DVagabond]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X_Overvoltage/2.html

There you go Fury X owners. Go get you some. Article says performance increases linearly at half the percentage of clock rate increases. Max performance/power was about 1220mhz, 10% performance improvement, and power draw increases by nearly 200 watts.

You need to learn how to read the graphs

Hint: Don't start where the card is undervolted. Start at "0 mv" and don't go any higher then the voltage that gave the highest clocks. +144 mv.

 

[tential]

I'll wait for more testing to confirm but so far it looks like I'm skipping this horrendous generation of cards.

 

[utahraptor]

Well, the take away is that the option will at least be there and there is head room if you are willing to pay the price. We are heading into fall soon so that extra heat won't be such a big deal right ?

 

[Silverforce11]

Why does performance goes up with memory OC, its so strange to think Fiji would be bandwidth starved? Smells like a latency issue at play.

Here:

Basically core OC alone doesn't seem to scale well but with memory OC added it scales good. Odd behavior, wonder if Fiji or BF3.

For reference, 4K BF3 results:

Edit: So very strange to think a GPU with that much bandwidth is BOTTLENECKED by memory performance.

 

[utahraptor]

So 190 more watts equals 9% boost in FPS.

 

[Silverforce11]

I much prefer the undervolt results.

-48mV Vcore and still running "OC" speeds at over 1,125mhz from stock 1050mhz speed. With a 50W power savings.

With a slight vram bump, should get 5% above stock Fury X performance while saving a lot of power. Win-win. I did the same with my R290s. Sipping power with an undervolt, ~160W gaming load is amazing for R290 class performance (similar to 970!).

 

[tviceman]

Hint: Don't start where the card is undervolted. Start at "0 mv" and don't go any higher then the voltage that gave the highest clocks. +144 mv.

You're right, but I was paraphrasing the article. Looks like wizard did a ninja edit, because at the end where he says "Looking at the numbers, I'm not sure if a 150W power draw increase, just to get an extra 3 FPS, is worth it for most gamers," it did say 200W.

 

[tviceman]

I much prefer the undervolt results.

-48mV Vcore and still running "OC" speeds at over 1,125mhz from stock 1050mhz speed. With a 50W power savings.

With a slight vram bump, should get 5% above stock Fury X performance while saving a lot of power. Win-win. I did the same with my R290s. Sipping power with an undervolt, ~160W gaming load is amazing for R290 class performance (similar to 970!).

That'd be a waste of a purchase when, for the same price, a consumer can get a EVGA SC+ 980TI and get 35% better performance out of the box than an undervolted Fury X at 1440pfor only 35 more watts than an undervolted Fury X.

 

[Silverforce11]

That'd be a waste of a purchase when, for the same price, a consumer can get a EVGA SC+ 980TI and get 35% better performance out of the box than an undervolted Fury X at 1440pfor only 35 more watts than an undervolted Fury X.

Sure. 1440p makes more sense on 980Ti, agreed.

Well, somebody's buying them cos they still sell out instantly when they come in stocks here. A few stores also stop taking preorders cos their list is too big, the next shipments are already sold-out to people on the queue.

Not sure who is buying all these cos 1440p or below, 980Ti is a winner, we all know, according to Steam, 1080p is the vast majority of gamers. Fury/X loses even worse there.

 

[chimaxi83]

Wow, what terrible overclocking potential. +144mV for a measly 60MHz? My 290s can hit a 150MHz overclock with +50mV, and 980 can do even more with almost no voltage increase. WTF were they smoking when they said this was an overclockers dream?

 

[wege12]

This is highly disappointing. Makes me a little less excited about the Fury X I have on the way. Any chance this will improve with drivers and/or improvements on the method of voltage control?

 

[poofyhairguy]

This is highly disappointing. Makes me a little less excited about the Fury X I have on the way. Any chance this will improve with drivers and/or improvements on the method of voltage control?

Silicon lottery.

 

[railven]

Holy crap! 150 watts for 3fps gain? Would the gains be better/bigger in other games?

Woof, called it. AMD must have seen these results in-house and were in no rush to show the public.

 

[tential]

Well, the take away is that the option will at least be there and there is head room if you are willing to pay the price. We are heading into fall soon so that extra heat won't be such a big deal right ?

Winter is coming.....

Lol i hope more extensive oc results are better but lol.... I can't believe I had high hopes for this card.

At the same time I hope it gets discounted faster now.

 

[KingFatty]

Does this indicate there is some kind of bottleneck that can't really be avoided with overclocking? Maybe something to do with the use of an interposer?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Lol i hope more extensive oc results are better but lol.... I can't believe I had high hopes for this card.

It does seem like there is some sort unintuitive bottleneck that so far is unidentified.

Maybe these cards will be VR monsters and AMD has some extra junk in the trunk that only VR can use...

 

[Eymar]

Edit: So very strange to think a GPU with that much bandwidth is BOTTLENECKED by memory performance.

I don't think Fury is bandwidth starved (since BF3 probably doesn't have that huge a Frame Buffer or models\textures requirement even at 4k), but maybe increasing memory speed (since it's a slow wide bus) helps decrease access times. As Huddy pointed out in the TechTeamGB interview where the extra bandwidth helps is in large model/texture games where textures and models can be streamed from system memory while not affecting memory bandwidth related to framebuffer\rendering. Actually, that's his reasoning that 4GB HBM can be effectively as fast as 6 or 12GB of memory so maybe BS.

 

[Sabrewings]

The interposer is just a method of attaching it to the board. This is more an issue with the GPU's internals and their ability to clock. The board's VRM should be more than enough to handle the electrical requirements; the cooling is "sufficient" (at the very least better than typical air cooling); and the voltage can now be turned up.

I'm quite surprised that HBM overclocking has any effect at all. What the hell is it doing with all of that bandwidth? Though, as mentioned above, could it be a latency problem?

Lol i hope more extensive oc results are better but lol.... I can't believe I had high hopes for this card.

This is souring AMD's image for me. I stopped following the manufacturers and latest tech back in 2011 or so and only really started looking closely again in March of this year. This gave me a fairly clean slate with which to evaluate them again.

Thus far Nvidia came out with the Titan X and 980 Ti, somewhat quietly for each one. No outlandish claims. AMD came out with the Fury X quite loudly with lots of claims that I have yet to see realized. From a marketing standpoint, AMD has been a hype machine.

 

[Mr Evil]

All testing was done at [...] stock fan speeds

That cooler must be significantly overengineered if it can keep everything cool when overclocked without increasing fan speed!

At this point the VRMs are running temperatures above 95°C, even though they are cooled by the watercooling loop via a nearby copper pipe

Or maybe W1zzard doesn't know what he's doing...

 

[Makaveli]

Or maybe W1zzard doesn't know what he's doing...

I don't think that is the problem.

 

[soccerballtux]

well, as others have pointed out, AMD's best cards have been the 2nd gen iterations of a new process/tech/core. So, next year we may have some really interesting results.

 

[soccerballtux]

The interposer is just a method of attaching it to the board. This is more an issue with the GPU's internals and their ability to clock. The board's VRM should be more than enough to handle the electrical requirements; the cooling is "sufficient" (at the very least better than typical air cooling); and the voltage can now be turned up.

I'm quite surprised that HBM overclocking has any effect at all. What the hell is it doing with all of that bandwidth? Though, as mentioned above, could it be a latency problem?



This is souring AMD's image for me. I stopped following the manufacturers and latest tech back in 2011 or so and only really started looking closely again in March of this year. This gave me a fairly clean slate with which to evaluate them again.

Thus far Nvidia came out with the Titan X and 980 Ti, somewhat quietly for each one. No outlandish claims. AMD came out with the Fury X quite loudly with lots of claims that I have yet to see realized. From a marketing standpoint, AMD has been a hype machine.

if AMD had managed to prevent the Fiji performance leaks, NVidia wouldn't have released the 980Ti and then we would have had a card everyone would have been raving about.

 

[tential]

if AMD had managed to prevent the Fiji performance leaks, NVidia wouldn't have released the 980Ti and then we would have had a card everyone would have been raving about.

Lol no. It was already rumored the 980ti was coming before we saw and fury x perf leaks. In fact no one truly knew fury x as amd kept an extremely tight lid on perf leaks.

980ti came out because that's what nvidia does. They follow up the premium card with something just as fast but cheaper.

Even if 980ti came out 1 month after fury x we still wouldn't rave about fury for that month. Look at how this release happened lol.... 980ti could have releases 1 month after fury x and still been amazing since fury x didn't even have voltage mod oc results up.

Spin it however you want this launch sucked. Just sucked. And I went into this launch expecting amd to do just ok..... Not this though.... Honestly the blunders during this launch were so basic they weren't on my radar for ways amd could screw up.