Fury X voltage adjustment now available

[5150Joker]

What's next on the Wait and See™ list? DX12, right?

That plus the new theme is now "but it can undervoltz!". This has been a hilarious experience.


Bye

-Rvenger

 

[Silverforce11]

That plus the new theme is now "but it can undervoltz!". This has been a hilarious experience.

Hey its Joker! I was expecting you to come in here and trash talk as usual in an AMD thread. Nice of you not to disappoint.

Undervolting is very much appreciated! But, apparently perf/w doesn't matter anymore.

It used to be noise, temps, power... soon Nano comes and its the most power efficient, nope, perf/w don't matter..

Goal posts.. here, have some.

 

[Silverforce11]

What's next on the Wait and See™ list? DX12, right?

There were plenty of naysayers when some of us suggested the 7970 will be more future proof than the 680, or that GCN being in all the major platforms will benefit AMD GPUs..

History repeating itself, GCN bested Kepler, so will GCN best Maxwell 2.

I mean really, for some reasons (what are they?), you don't think GCN will perform excellent in DX12, the API that it was designed for (Mantle & Vulkan says Hi!).. hmm.

https://www.khronos.org/assets/uplo...y/2015-gdc/Valve-Vulkan-Session-GDC_Mar15.pdf

 

[XiandreX]

yea voltage increase does that besides this is gcn and 1200-1300 is the highest the uarch goes.

I am aware of that, however the amount it skyrockets is ridiculous.

 

[Silverforce11]

I am aware of that, however the amount it skyrockets is ridiculous.

You haven't seen R290/X OC with vcore? 400-450W.

Even the 7970 drew major power when pushed with lots of +vcore..

Handy for a bench run but crap for daily usage.

 

[monstercameron]

I am aware of that, however the amount it skyrockets is ridiculous.

every chips power goes up with voltage as you know, however note that this is a massive and dense die ~600mm^2. applying voltage to the massive shader array is expensive and ~100+mV turns out to be alot of power. Maybe you should check out oc 290xs or 780tis.

 

[railven]

It's the Internet man. He knows what i mean but I have an "agenda" which still hasn't been told to me lol...

Welcome to the club, Tential. I guess when we both had high hopes for Fury X, we were part of the gang. Once we got sour - we've got agendas.

 

[Silverforce11]

Welcome to the club, Tential. I guess when we both had high hopes for Fury X, we were part of the gang. Once we got sour - we've got agendas.

I had high hopes for Fury X. It did not meet my expectations, so I won't jump onboard this gen and wait for 14nm.

But that disappointment ("we got sour", why?) doesn't have to equate to trash talking down on AMD at every chance.

 

[tviceman]

Hey its Joker! I was expecting you to come in here and trash talk as usual in an AMD thread. Nice of you not to disappoint.

Undervolting is very much appreciated! But, apparently perf/w doesn't matter anymore.

It used to be noise, temps, power... soon Nano comes and its the most power efficient, nope, perf/w don't matter..

Goal posts.. here, have some.

You are moving the goalposts just as much as he is. You haven't once mentioned perf/$ within the context of this discussion. GTX 980 TI wins that, and only an undervolted Fury X at 4k can tie a 980 TI at perf/w.

Then in the matter of outright performance, Fury X comes up way short against the 980 TI when both are OC. The one and only redeeming quality for Fury X is CFX. Buying Fury X to undervolt and hopefully match a stock 980 TI in perf/w is silly.

This latest development cements Fury X as a dud at $649. Even at $599 there are still strong arguments to go with a $649-679 aftermarket 980 TI.

 

[tential]

Welcome to the club, Tential. I guess when we both had high hopes for Fury X, we were part of the gang. Once we got sour - we've got agendas.

I have a HD7950, I had an R9 290 ready to purchase, but was waiting on Fury X.

During that time period, 4K downsampling was removed from the R9 290 I wanted (THE MAIN FEATURE I WANED), limited to 1800p, thanks AMD, then the Fury X, the "OCers dream" was just a normal OCer with watercooling with a pump that had issues, etc. etc. etc.

I was there telling EVERY PERSON to wait for Fury X release before judging it. Then to WAIT for the Fury X OC results before judging it. There is nothing left to sit and wait for.

Fury didn't deliver on enough fronts for me to write a book about it. Now I have an Agenda? No, it's simply not a great release. The R9 290x release was interesting and changed the game a bit. This Fury release? It didn't change ANYTHING for a TON of people. It just wasted their time and they went out and got a 980Ti.

I had high hopes for Fury X. It did not meet my expectations, so I won't jump onboard this gen and wait for 14nm.

But that disappointment ("we got sour", why?) doesn't have to equate to trash talking down on AMD at every chance.

Huh since when did I trash talk AMD at every chance I get? There isn't much good to say about the Fury launch though...

You are moving the goalposts just as much as he is. You haven't once mentioned perf/$ within the context of this discussion. GTX 980 TI wins that, and only an undervolted Fury X at 4k can tie a 980 TI at perf/w.

Then in the matter of outright performance, Fury X comes up way short against the 980 TI when both are OC. The one and only redeeming quality for Fury X is CFX. Buying Fury X to undervolt and hopefully match a stock 980 TI in perf/w is silly.

This latest development cements Fury X as a dud at $649. Even at $599 there are still strong arguments to go with a $649-679 aftermarket 980 TI.

It's weird to me because I won't consider a 980ti, but I consider the Fury X (Watercooling again I guess). Even NOW I still consider Fury X, but so many flaws... The 980Ti, I can't trust Nvidia, but that's a solid highend product at least.

Fury's whole launch just was unimpressive. My high end recommendation is the 980Ti and it is a stupid surprise to say that.

Considering the features I want aren't available AMD side but are available Nvidia (For a stupid price premium of course), I'm stuck waiting til 2016 I guess or hoping Fury gets discounted heavily at some point.

 

[railven]

I had high hopes for Fury X. It did not meet my expectations, so I won't jump onboard this gen and wait for 14nm.

But that disappointment ("we got sour", why?) doesn't have to equate to trash talking down on AMD at every chance.

It's funny that you infer criticism as "trash talk." I've yet to be damning of the company. I said Fury and R9 300 series were good launches/products.

I guess we can't be critical around here of AMD without it being taken as "trash talking."

I have a HD7950, I had an R9 290 ready to purchase, but was waiting on Fury X.

During that time period, 4K downsampling was removed from the R9 290 I wanted (THE MAIN FEATURE I WANED), limited to 1800p, thanks AMD, then the Fury X, the "OCers dream" was just a normal OCer with watercooling with a pump that had issues, etc. etc. etc.

I was there telling EVERY PERSON to wait for Fury X release before judging it. Then to WAIT for the Fury X OC results before judging it. There is nothing left to sit and wait for.

Fury didn't deliver on enough fronts for me to write a book about it. Now I have an Agenda? No, it's simply not a great release. The R9 290x release was interesting and changed the game a bit. This Fury release? It didn't change ANYTHING for a TON of people. It just wasted their time and they went out and got a 980Ti.

Bold is where I sat. I recall the first miss was the lack of HDMI 2.0. I presently play on my TV+monitor setup, but I don't have 4K HDTV - yet

I think for me it was just the hype this forum seems to always infect me with. From the radical "30% OC" expectations. Hell, I was set to jump on board with the expectations of 90% Titan X for less. Than that 980 Ti just came out of no where.

I've gone as far as to call it a fiasco of a launch (Fury X) from all the pre-hype, the E3 conference, the wording, to the issues, the lack of tools, and I guess you can add fuel to being called an NV fanboy/bias or "trash talk[er]" for being critical of a company/product I had high expectations for. Woof.

 

[Silverforce11]

You are moving the goalposts just as much as he is. You haven't once mentioned perf/$ within the context of this discussion. GTX 980 TI wins that, and only an undervolted Fury X at 4k can tie a 980 TI at perf/w.

Then in the matter of outright performance, Fury X comes up way short against the 980 TI when both are OC. The one and only redeeming quality for Fury X is CFX. Buying Fury X to undervolt and hopefully match a stock 980 TI in perf/w is silly.

This latest development cements Fury X as a dud at $649. Even at $599 there are still strong arguments to go with a $649-679 aftermarket 980 TI.

Again it depends on your gaming resolution.

Fury X is very competitive at 4K, more-so in multi-GPU configs to a point where it wins.

-50W with 5% OC is a big deal when its doing so well at 4K. So there's some good from having vcore tools, it's not terrible at all, GCN with vcore OC uses lots of power, nothing new. Welcome to a few years ago.

 

[monstercameron]

hmmm I wonder how undervolted cfx would do, how unstable is that tpu undervolt?

guys get over yourselves, we arent really interested in your bit...whining

 

[tviceman]

-50W with 5% OC is a big deal when its doing so well at 4K. So there's some good from having vcore tools, it's not terrible at all, GCN with vcore OC uses lots of power, nothing new. Welcome to a few years ago.

If you're going to CFX, then you have yourself a winner if you've got a 4k monitor to go with it.

But lets not kid ourselves. Fury X undervolt + OC is not saving 50w (quit exaggerating) and it's not doing well at 4k in a single card solution (unless well is 35-40fps avg). If it's your bag of tea to buy one card specifically to undervolt so it can match the perf/w of a faster and similarly priced card then go for it. At least all that heat isn't dumping into your poor air-flow case, because that suddenly became a really important attribute a month ago.

 

[Silverforce11]

If you're going to CFX, then you have yourself a winner if you've got a 4k monitor to go with it.

Fantastic, good to see you can agree on something good about AMD's products for once.

Btw, VSR enables people on sub 4K to enjoy superior IQ & AA.

 

[tential]

It's funny that you infer criticism as "trash talk." I've yet to be damning of the company. I said Fury and R9 300 series were good launches/products.

I guess we can't be critical around here of AMD without it being taken as "trash talking."



Bold is where I sat. I recall the first miss was the lack of HDMI 2.0. I presently play on my TV+monitor setup, but I don't have 4K HDTV - yet

I think for me it was just the hype this forum seems to always infect me with. From the radical "30% OC" expectations. Hell, I was set to jump on board with the expectations of 90% Titan X for less. Than that 980 Ti just came out of no where.

I've gone as far as to call it a fiasco of a launch (Fury X) from all the pre-hype, the E3 conference, the wording, to the issues, the lack of tools, and I guess you can add fuel to being called an NV fanboy/bias or "trash talk[er]" for being critical of a company/product I had high expectations for. Woof.

And I think I was the person to even say it may not be a fiasco but it's definitely bungled. The hdmi 2.0 was the first misstep. After that there hasn't been a single thing about fury x besides crossfire performance that is exciting. The rest of the card is just meh.

The 980ti isn't even something I can blame it on. Amd knows the Titan x affordable version is coming so meh. Imo the 980ti aggressive 650 price tag hurt amd badly. I expected the 980ti,but not at that price. I dunno where the 780 launched at but I assume higher than 650.

I know it's a bad purchase for me but a 980ti g1 looks so sweet right now lol...

The best thing about the fury x launch is because it underwhelmed me so much, I've saved 4k+. I was going to get 4k tv+cards but now nothing. I may get a dog though!

 

[Glo.]

I am aware of that, however the amount it skyrockets is ridiculous.

Its because the GPU is wide. Every core needs a portion of power at certain level of frequency. In theory, the wider GPU you have the slower it should be clocked. AMD pushes their GPUs to the limits of reasonable power consumption and performance ratio.

The other side is where you downclock and undervolt the core. Wider GPU with slower cores, will be more powerful in the same power envelope than narrow, but high clocked one.

And thats exactly what differs Maxwell GPUs from AMD ones. AMD gets more power efficient with every step down on the scale of voltage, without loosing significant amounts of performance. I've already brought to this forum link from other sites/threads about full Hawaii being able to be squeezed to 145W of TDP while having 85-90% of nominal performance.

That exact reason is why Green500 list says GCN is the most power efficient architecture that's ever been on this planet.
http://www.green500.org/news/green500-list-november-2014

I know its not exactly relevant to this thread. Just for information .

 

[Sabrewings]

I dunno where the 780 launched at but I assume higher than 650.

The GTX 780 launched at $650.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/20

 

[tential]

The GTX 780 launched at $650.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/20

Meh tried to give AMD the benefit of the doubt there and assume they were pricing to undercut the previously established price.

980ti at 650 should be on amds radar... They should have known the performance or had an idea based off Titan x. So meh at this point I mean it is what it is.

Hopefully since amd is first to amd they'll have the best hbm card in 2016 because I don't see many ways amd is going to do well in the current market. 980/ti is going to stomp all over fury/x when it comes to recommendations and sales. Amd needs a real definitive answer in 2016. Without one, their brand image will be so tarnished it won't matter what they do.

These oc results are going to hurt a lot the old "amd to heat your room in winter" will be in full effect even if you can undervolt(Brb buying flagship water-cooled cards to undervolt.....)

 

[Rvenger]

Meh tried to give AMD the benefit of the doubt there and assume they were pricing to undercut the previously established price.

980ti at 650 should be on amds radar... They should have known the performance or had an idea based off Titan x. So meh at this point I mean it is what it is.

Hopefully since amd is first to amd they'll have the best hbm card in 2016 because I don't see many ways amd is going to do well in the current market. 980/ti is going to stomp all over fury/x when it comes to recommendations and sales. Amd needs a real definitive answer in 2016. Without one, their brand image will be so tarnished it won't matter what they do.

These oc results are going to hurt a lot the old "amd to heat your room in winter" will be in full effect even if you can undervolt(Brb buying flagship water-cooled cards to undervolt.....)

All this pricing talk does not belong in this thread. If it continues I will be kicking members out of this thread with an infraction and/or vacation.

-Rvenger

 

[soccerballtux]

That plus the new theme is now "but it can undervoltz!". This has been a hilarious experience.

waiting for DX12 is a legitimate 'wait and see'.

I agree that the undervolting isn't really a selling point for me and I do see some spin going on there. I feel like most people aren't stupid enough to swallow it though.

 

[soccerballtux]

That right there is the reason people are irritated. The amount of power required when overclocked is unacceptable especially given the small boost from core clock.

maybe they didn't know/maybe thought it really would? You can't be certain except for when you have the chip in your hands.

yea voltage increase does that besides this is gcn and 1200-1300 is the highest the uarch goes.

it doesn't actually have to be that way. I'm kinda surprised they didn't tweak the frequency limiting critical paths more. Unless it's fully optimized already, but when has that ever been true? They should have tweaked for clock speed this go around.

 

[soccerballtux]

You are moving the goalposts just as much as he is. You haven't once mentioned perf/$ within the context of this discussion. GTX 980 TI wins that, and only an undervolted Fury X at 4k can tie a 980 TI at perf/w.

Then in the matter of outright performance, Fury X comes up way short against the 980 TI when both are OC. The one and only redeeming quality for Fury X is CFX. Buying Fury X to undervolt and hopefully match a stock 980 TI in perf/w is silly.

This latest development cements Fury X as a dud at $649. Even at $599 there are still strong arguments to go with a $649-679 aftermarket 980 TI.

GPU perf/watt is such a dull argument IMO, how much time are you really gaming? Unless it's 4hours a day...? More like 4hrs a week. So it's really a non issue.

 

[guskline]

Kudos to Wizard for writing code to unlock the Fury X voltage.

 

[tviceman]

Fantastic, good to see you can agree on something good about AMD's products for once.

Btw, VSR enables people on sub 4K to enjoy superior IQ & AA.

If people want to pay twice as much for their graphics, doubling their heat and power output only to enable higher forms of AA then somewhere a polar bear is reading this thread, getting a haircut, and sharpening his claws.