I can't wait for Fury (aircooled) to come out ASAP

[Mondozei]

Because it will (hopefully) trigger a price war and push down GTX 980 prices.
Just 2'ish weeks left now until release.
For those of us living in EU, the GPU prices here are bonkers. The 980 Ti costs 900 dollar equivalent.

I sold my two 290s in Crossfire - which worked great but having a single GPU is a blessing, too, since I don't have a private sauna in my living room anymore - and I am now trigger-happy on the buy-button. I've bought and cancelled the order twice now.

Using my trusty old 560 Ti is as fun as it sounds. Can't wait for July 14th to come around fast enough.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Because it will (hopefully) trigger a price war and push down GTX 980 prices.
Just 2'ish weeks left now until release.
For those of us living in EU, the GPU prices here are bonkers. The 980 Ti costs 900 dollar equivalent.

I sold my two 290s in Crossfire - which worked great but having a single GPU is a blessing, too, since I don't have a private sauna in my living room anymore - and I am now trigger-happy on the buy-button. I've bought and cancelled the order twice now.

Using my trusty old 560 Ti is as fun as it sounds. Can't wait for July 14th to come around fast enough.

Wasn't the Fury X (water cooled) only 30% faster than a 290x?

You are going to see a large performance degredation. The Fury X still produces a lot of heat even though it is water cooled. All energy becomes heat. Make no mistake, it is using more power than a 980ti and therefor will produce more heat than a 980ti.

 

[Kallogan]

i bet it will suck 30W more than the water cooled model. Best case scenario.

my 290 used to need around 25W more at 80°C compared to 60°C

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yep. Going from water to air will have a negative impact on power consumption. And with that performance as well. Plus its cutdown too.

But I think we can all agree the GTX980 is priced oddly. 310$ GTX970, 499$ GTX980 and 649$ 980TI just dont match. The GTX980 needs to be 400-450$.

 

[nitromullet]

Definitely interested in what the Fury Pro will bring to the table as well. I really hope AMD either doesn't put some awful air cooler on it, or the month delay between the Fury X and Fury Pro is to give AIBs time to come up with cooler designs.

 

[AtenRa]

If the custom Aircooler is adequate, then power consumption will not be that much higher.
Also the cut down version is the Fiji Pro, so AirCooled Fiji will be the same as Fury-X.
Also Fury Nano according to AMD will be faster than 390X and at lower power consumption, making it a direct GTX980 competitor.

 

[digitaldurandal]

If the custom Aircooler is adequate, then power consumption will not be that much higher.
Also the cut down version is the Fiji Pro, so AirCooled Fiji will be the same as Fury-X.

1) The power consumption is already fairly high, using more than Titan X in some cases.

2) Source for it not being a cut down chip please.

 

[monstercameron]

1) The power consumption is already fairly high, using more than Titan X in some cases.



2) Source for it not being a cut down chip please.

Source for it being a cutdown chip?

I thought that the nano was the cut down chip.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Source for it being a cutdown chip?

I thought that the nano was the cut down chip.

Leaked info has it that Fury Pro is 3584SP@1Ghz sporting a 3 fan air cooler. And the gflops/watt ratio is 20% lower than Fury X.

 

[AtenRa]

1) The power consumption is already fairly high, using more than Titan X in some cases.

2) Source for it not being a cut down chip please.

1: with a good aircooler you wont get more than 5-10W more than Fury-X

2: Who said there is only Fiji Pro with Air cooling ??? source for that ???

 

[soccerballtux]

Leaked info has it that Fury Pro is 3584SP@1Ghz sporting a 3 fan air cooler. And the gflops/watt ratio is 20% lower than Fury X.

and the source?

 

[digitaldurandal]

1: with a good aircooler you wont get more than 5-10W more than Fury-X

2: Who said there is only Fiji Pro with Air cooling ??? source for that ???

You made the claim and I asked for a source already, to which you replied that you thought something. Now you are asking him for a source.

http://wccftech.com/amd-fury-30k-units-2015-air-liquid-cooling/

I don't know their source but I have seen this other places. I am not sure why you think the air cooled version is the full core. I have not seen this anywhere.

 

[digitaldurandal]

1: with a good aircooler you wont get more than 5-10W more than Fury-X

2: Who said there is only Fiji Pro with Air cooling ??? source for that ???

1. Yes so 10W more than already using more power than Titan X

2. Who said Fiji XT is coming with air cooling? All the charts I have seen including the one I posted in the reply above show it at 3584 SP. This could be wrong however I have not seen anything saying that the XT is going to have air cooling.

 

[tkrushing]

and the source?

Common sense tells us that if they released Fury X on a stock AIO solution then it runs too hot to not be throttled on air. I really doubt we will see a full Fury on air. I have no rock solid sources but I would put money on a cut down Fury on air. Keep hope if you want.

 

[ShintaiDK]

and the source?

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2736/radeon-r9-fury.html

 

[alcoholbob]

Wouldn't an aftermarket 980 with a 3 fans be just as fast as an air cooled cut-down Fury outside of 4K?

 

[digitaldurandal]

Wouldn't an aftermarket 980 with a 3 fans be just as fast as an air cooled cut-down Fury outside of 4K?

Well assuming a linear scaling aircooled Fury with 3584 SP would be 87.5% as fast as Fury X. So I guess look at games you play and compare 980 to Fury X and see if it is 87.5% of the speed.

Of course we don't know the scaling yet.

Does anyone know when information on Fury and Nano is coming out? I couldn't find it.

 

[Silverforce11]

Fury X has shown it cannot utilize the GCN cores effectively, with 45% more but much less performance scaling. Computerbase goes into details, it was effectively a trade-off design for better 4K performance, but 1080p would be front-end limited.

If its cut down on cores by not front end, i would not expect a major performance drop at 1080/1440p. At 4K yes.

 

[Head1985]

Fury X has shown it cannot utilize the GCN cores effectively, with 45% more but much less performance scaling. Computerbase goes into details, it was effectively a trade-off design for better 4K performance, but 1080p would be front-end limited.

If its cut down on cores by not front end, i would not expect a major performance drop at 1080/1440p. At 4K yes.

Yeah cut down version will have exact same performance on same clock as FURY X.Even if pro version have only 3584SP.
Fury x can only utilize +20-30% more SP at 4k....In 1080P and 2k its only +20% at max.
FIJI have same Old Front-END like OLD HAwaii.
FIJI have 4 "pipeline" and each with 1024SP
Fiji- http://abload.de/img/beznzvugxuko.jpg
Tonga- http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8460/285Block.jpg
Hawaii- http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7457/HawaiiArch.png
Maxwell2- http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9059/TITAN_X_Block_Diagram_FINAL.png
Maxwell2 have 6 "pipeline" and 512SP per each pipe so maxwell2 have 50% better/wider front-end and scale much better.

 

[ocre]

Fury X has shown it cannot utilize the GCN cores effectively, with 45% more but much less performance scaling. Computerbase goes into details, it was effectively a trade-off design for better 4K performance, but 1080p would be front-end limited.

If its cut down on cores by not front end, i would not expect a major performance drop at 1080/1440p. At 4K yes.

If its cut down on cores by not front end?

Not sure what that means.

You say computerbase goes into details, is it just speculation? Do you have the link?

 

[Silverforce11]

If its cut down on cores by not front end?

Not sure what that means.

You say computerbase goes into details, is it just speculation? Do you have the link?

You can read their review, they talked with AMD regarding the design of Fiji and how its using basically Tonga-class front end (ROPs, ACE) but beefed up GCN cores (backend). It's an unbalanced design that only shines at 4K, since lower resolution the front end cannot keep up with the shaders utilization falling off.

Such an unbalanced design needs a lot of driver optimizations to extract peak performance (like how you often described Kepler vs Maxwell).

 

[flopper]

Looks like a perfect card for me.
Bring it on

 

[[jF]]

These upcoming air-coolers have got to be *epic* to control the heat that Fury is going to give off! It's going to be interesting seeing the released clock speeds and if any throttling occurs...

 

[Flapdrol1337]

These upcoming air-coolers have got to be *epic* to control the heat that Fury is going to give off! It's going to be interesting seeing the released clock speeds and if any throttling occurs...

Aftermarket coolers with 2 fans get rid of 300W easily.

 

[Head1985]

You can read their review, they talked with AMD regarding the design of Fiji and how its using basically Tonga-class front end (ROPs, ACE) but beefed up GCN cores (backend). It's an unbalanced design that only shines at 4K, since lower resolution the front end cannot keep up with the shaders utilization falling off.

Such an unbalanced design needs a lot of driver optimizations to extract peak performance (like how you often described Kepler vs Maxwell).

Yeah and Tonga have same front-end as hawaii.Fiji is just old and bad design.
I really dont know why they didnt add more rops.
96Rops mean FIJI will have 6 "pipeline" just like maxwell2 and 50% more wider front-end

3840SP
224TMU
96Rops
This GPU will be faster than current FIJI

And best case scenario with 128Rops with 8 "pipeline" front-end.This variant will destroy TitanX.But they cant manufacture this variant because it will be too big for 28nm TSMC.
4096SP
256TMU
128Rops