I have a GTX 770 4 GB right now would going to Sapphire Fury be a worthwhile upgrade?

pcslookout

Lifer
Mar 18, 2007
11,926
146
106
I know you said the GTX1070 is good and ok but to expensive compared to just getting a Sapphire Fury.

If your intent is to address a question to a specific forum member, message them privately.
-- stahlhart
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
I know you said the GTX1070 is good and ok but to expensive compared to just getting a Sapphire Fury.

This really should have been a private message, not a thread.

Anyway, GTX 1070 is more expensive than a Fury, but you get more VRAM (good if you want to keep the card for longer), better performance on average across a variety of games, and better power efficiency. The trade off is that the GTX 1070 is more expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mohit9206

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
My problem is I don't know if I want to go back to ATI or AMD.

There is nothing wrong with AMD. Drivers have been great and the price/performance and features on the Fury make it an amazing buy for the price right now.
 

Mercennarius

Senior member
Oct 28, 2015
466
84
91
Well a refurbished Fury can be had for $225-$250 right now and apparently many Furys can be unlocked to a full Fury X. You cannot beat the performance for the $ right now.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
My answer is, that Fury/FuryX is dead in the water and a waste of money due to the 4GB frame buffer, which isn't enough for a high end card these days. Because of the 4GB framebuffer, you're going to run into issues when using the highest grade of textures in games like Deus Ex MD, or even Gears of War 4. There'll be lots more stuttering due to frame time spikes because of texture swapping. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


For most of the video, the Fury X actually does quite well because most of the scenes are stationary. But once the reviewer goes to Prague and starts moving around the city, then you begin to see the limitations of the 4GB framebuffer. The FuryX has some very bad frame time spikes, whilst the 980 Ti and the 1080 have a smooth and very consistent frame time variance..

So basically, the only card worth upgrading to right now is the GTX 1070. If you shop around, you can get some really good bargains..
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Well a refurbished Fury can be had for $225-$250 right now and apparently many Furys can be unlocked to a full Fury X. You cannot beat the performance for the $ right now.

Refurbished?? Do you really think it's fair, apples-to-apples to compare refurb Furies to NIB GTX 1070s?

Why not recommend an EVA B-Stock 980 Ti?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thinker_145

pcslookout

Lifer
Mar 18, 2007
11,926
146
106
My answer is, that Fury/FuryX is dead in the water and a waste of money due to the 4GB frame buffer, which isn't enough for a high end card these days. Because of the 4GB framebuffer, you're going to run into issues when using the highest grade of textures in games like Deus Ex MD, or even Gears of War 4. There'll be lots more stuttering due to frame time spikes because of texture swapping. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:


For most of the video, the Fury X actually does quite well because most of the scenes are stationary. But once the reviewer goes to Prague and starts moving around the city, then you begin to see the limitations of the 4GB framebuffer. The FuryX has some very bad frame time spikes, whilst the 980 Ti and the 1080 have a smooth and very consistent frame time variance..

So basically, the only card worth upgrading to right now is the GTX 1070. If you shop around, you can get some really good bargains..

Thanks. I found a EVGA GTX 1080 for $370 or $379.99 which doesn't seem that bad but still not sure.
 

pcslookout

Lifer
Mar 18, 2007
11,926
146
106
Oh yeah do you get a free Gears of War 4 with all Nvidia GTX 1070 manufacturers ? If so that takes off $60 too if I wanted the game.
 

Mercennarius

Senior member
Oct 28, 2015
466
84
91
Refurbished?? Do you really think it's fair, apples-to-apples to compare refurb Furies to NIB GTX 1070s?

Why not recommend an EVA B-Stock 980 Ti?

I do..when I buy anything I always look at ALL my options...its foolish not too. And where can you get a 980 Ti under $300?? I can buy a Fury for $225 -$250 right now with a 90 day warranty...there's nothing that can touch that performance wise for the money right now.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
I do..when I buy anything I always look at ALL my options...its foolish not too. And where can you get a 980 Ti under $300?? I can buy a Fury for $225 -$250 right now with a 90 day warranty...there's nothing that can touch that performance wise for the money right now.

Huh, 980 Tis are still selling for $350+ used on eBay. Strange how they've held up in value, even in the face of the 1070.
 

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,643
615
136
I think RS' analysis earlier was sound. If BF1 is overwhelming your primary concern than the discount Fury is a value that cannot be topped. Comparable performance but much less money.

If you want to weigh general games into the picture, the 1070 is overall faster and also has more VRAM. This also means the 1070 will likely be a better long term choice too.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
My answer is, that Fury/FuryX is dead in the water and a waste of money due to the 4GB frame buffer, which isn't enough for a high end card these days. Because of the 4GB framebuffer, you're going to run into issues when using the highest grade of textures in games like Deus Ex MD, or even Gears of War 4. There'll be lots more stuttering due to frame time spikes because of texture swapping. Here's an example of what I'm talking about

That video is from Sept 2nd, before 16.9.1, 16.9.2 or the current 16.10.1 drivers and many Deus Ex patches as well, all of which have increased performance.

I play Deus EX MD @ 3440x1440 DX12 and it runs very well. Trying to upsell him almost 50% of the cost of the card just to be able to turn up maybe one or two settings max per game is ridiculous.

Gears-of-War-FT-UHD-R9-Fury-No-Lock-No-Vsync-UHD-Display-pcgh.png


What frame time issues with Fury exactly? Thats @ 4k! Minimums on the 4GB Fury are same as the 8GB 480 @ 4k, higher than it and 1060 @ 1080p.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madpacket

nurturedhate

Golden Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,738
652
136
I think RS' analysis earlier was sound. If BF1 is overwhelming your primary concern than the discount Fury is a value that cannot be topped. Comparable performance but much less money.

If you want to weigh general games into the picture, the 1070 is overall faster and also has more VRAM. This also means the 1070 will likely be a better long term choice too.

This right here.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
OP, if you want a 1070, but the 1070. If you want best price/performance, buy a Fury.

Both will be outclassed by the next releases by Nvidia/AMD next year.

If it was my money (and I did this purchase myself recently) the Fury is a much better buy now and you'll save money to fund your purchase of the ones coming out next year which will most likely better in all ways: efficiency, memory, speed. If nothing else they will lower the costs on the current cards and devalue them.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
That video is from Sept 2nd, before 16.9.1, 16.9.2 or the current 16.10.1 drivers and many Deus Ex patches as well, all of which have increased performance.

I play Deus EX MD @ 3440x1440 DX12 and it runs very well

Is that with ultra textures? DX12 or patches can't erase a hardware limitation..

Trying to upsell him almost 50% of the cost of the card just to be able to turn up maybe one or two settings max per game is ridiculous.

Texture quality is one of the most important IQ settings in a game. Also, it's not just about IQ. There are legitimate performance concerns as less VRAM means more trips to system RAM, which means more stuttering and frame time spikes..
What frame time issues with Fury exactly? Thats @ 4k! Minimums on the 4GB Fury are same as the 8GB 480 @ 4k, higher than it and 1060 @ 1080p.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gears-of-War-4-Spiel-55621/Specials/Performance-Test-Review-1209651/

When discussing frame times, you can't just look at minimums. Also, the RX480 is more limited by processing power at 4K than by VRAM, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up. That frame time graph you posted looks jagged as hell compared to the GTX 980 Ti:

Gears-of-War-FT-UHD-GTX-980-Ti-No-Lock-No-Vsync-4K-Display-pcgh.png
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
If it was my money (and I did this purchase myself recently) the Fury is a much better buy now and you'll save money to fund your purchase of the ones coming out next year which will most likely better in all ways: efficiency, memory, speed. If nothing else they will lower the costs on the current cards and devalue them.

This is kind of flawed logic if you ask me. Buy a cheaper card to save money, but when it comes time to sell that very card, it will be worth even less than it is now. The GTX 1070 on the other hand will hold its value much better, so that if he wanted something faster next year, he will be able to recover more of his initial investment..

Fury will also be harder to sell than a GTX 1070..
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
This is kind of flawed logic if you ask me. Buy a cheaper card to save money, but when it comes time to sell that very card, it will be worth even less than it is now. The GTX 1070 on the other hand will hold its value much better, so that if he wanted something faster next year, he will be able to recover more of his initial investment..

You have no idea what selling price would be or even if he would resell instead of reuse. And do you think the Fury would be $150 less than the 1070 when re-selling? Because that is the current saving.
 

Mercennarius

Senior member
Oct 28, 2015
466
84
91
This is kind of flawed logic if you ask me. Buy a cheaper card to save money, but when it comes time to sell that very card, it will be worth even less than it is now. The GTX 1070 on the other hand will hold its value much better, so that if he wanted something faster next year, he will be able to recover more of his initial investment..

This is also a flawed logic. The Fury has taken a larger depreciation hit and is likely to hold its value better over the next 6 months-12 months as it is already very cheap for the performance you get. While the 1070 being a much newer and more expensive card has a lot more to lose in the next 12 months, especially as new GPUs are released in the next 12 months. You will likely lose more money through depreciation with the 1070.
 

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
Texture quality is one of the most important IQ settings in a game. Also, it's not just about IQ. There are legitimate performance concerns as less VRAM means more trips to system RAM, which means more stuttering and frame time spikes..

I don't feel like doing a bunch of testing for you again like I did for Doom when you never admitted that I was correct when showing the Fury could handle Nightmare settings fine.

But yes some settings are turned down, I have to at my resolution. Even the 1070 does @ 1440p, let alone 3440x1440.

index.php


index.php


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...graphics_performance_benchmark_review,10.html
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
You have no idea what selling price would be or even if he would resell instead of reuse. And do you think the Fury would be $150 less than the 1070 when re-selling? Because that is the current saving.

There's no way for either of us to tell at this time. But it seems like a waste of money to buy a Fury as a simple stopgap solution, especially if he wants to sell it. AMD cards don't hold their value nearly as well as NVidia cards do, and anyone wanting to buy a Fury next year is going to ask bottom of the barrel prices for it as it's crippled with the 4GB buffer.