Is gameworks to blame for Fury's lackluster debut?

Goatsecks

Senior member
May 7, 2012
210
7
76
Is gameworks to blame for Fury's lackluster debut?

I am sure a lot of you will have some interesting theories on this one.
 

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,120
260
136
Just admit it ...

AMD got conroe'd by Nvidia ...

Gameworks is not to blame here, it's either AMD's design team or their management and I'm thinking it's a little bit of both ...
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Just admit it ...

AMD got conroe'd by Nvidia ...

Gameworks is not to blame here, it's either AMD's design team or their management and I'm thinking it's a little bit of both ...

This is mostly true.

AMD has opportunities to optimize for GW as well (although not given as much time) so its not some big mystery...
 

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
Consider the following review, which shows that I don't think it's Gameworks fault, but instead just weird choices by reviewer:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/video-card-reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/

So he compares a *stock* Fury X to an *overclocked* 980 Ti to conclude that AMD doesn't deliver. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, kind of weird.

It's almost as if some reviewers have a bias going into the review, and then make subtle changes to fulfill their own prophecy. Who knows, maybe it's subconscious?
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Just admit it ...

AMD got conroe'd by Nvidia ...

Gameworks is not to blame here, it's either AMD's design team or their management and I'm thinking it's a little bit of both ...

how did it get conroe'd?
let me see:
newer memory tech!
more flops!
~1.4x efficiency!

and there is still tonnes of stuff yet to be quantified!

as to the op, no, gameworks has little to do with it.
 
Last edited:

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,120
260
136
how did it get conroe'd?
let me see:
newer memory tech!
more flops!
~1.4x efficiency!

and there is still tonnes of stuff yet to be quantified!

as to the op, no gameworks has little to do with it.

Despite AMD's best improvements they were clearly aiming to get the performance crown but Fiji is well overdue on it's launch ...
 

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,120
260
136
The sad part about all of this is that AMD in the past has had a high advantage in performance per die area but all of this disappointment could have been avoided if AMD could've focused on getting the performance crown instead of being known as the "cheaper solution" ...
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,066
418
126
can you blame gameworks for this kind of stuff, or is it more about quality of the drivers work from AMD?

pcars_graf_w81_t2.png


pcars_graf_w10_t2.png


windows 8.1 fury

pcars-fps.gif


win 10 should help close the gap
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I don't believe so. Even in "normal" games the Fury X at bests matches the 980TI and that is before taking into account a typical OC.
 

Alatar

Member
Aug 3, 2013
167
1
81
can you blame gameworks for this kind of stuff, or is it more about quality of the drivers work from AMD?

Blaming gameworks for Project CARS performance is somewhat questionable considering that pCARS doesn't have any form of gameworks in it

:awe:
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,595
136
Its nvidias fault. They are to blame. <= Thats my theory.

End of thread.
 

Ban Bot

Senior member
Jun 1, 2010
796
1
76
Just admit it ...

AMD got conroe'd by Nvidia ...

Performance is within spitting distance of the 980 TI. Whereas the TI is already out and has a solid edge in most games the Fury X is smaller, quieter (depending on review site/method) and has reasonable power requirements.

That hardly qualifies as "conroe'd"

Fury won't be the outright win AMD wanted but it certainly isn't a failure of a product. If I had $650 burning a hole in my pocket for a new GPU I would say the stock water cooling and small form factor would be relevant buying considerations.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,066
418
126
Performance is within spitting distance of the 980 TI. Whereas the TI is already out and has a solid edge in most games the Fury X is smaller, quieter (depending on review site/method) and has reasonable power requirements.

That hardly qualifies as "conroe'd"

Fury won't be the outright win AMD wanted but it certainly isn't a failure of a product. If I had $650 burning a hole in my pocket for a new GPU I would say the stock water cooling and small form factor would be relevant buying considerations.

I agree, overall the card is quite good, performance can match the 980 ti in many games, power usage difference is hardly worth mentioning... the trouble is that a few games under perform on FuryX, and you have other considerations like memory capacity and overclock for example in favor of Nvidia, even the watercooler, it can be both and advantage and disadvantage...

so the same price is hard to justify... the only thing is that the card aspires to be more like a Titan X in terms of "premium" design...

but it should cost more than the 980 but less than the 980 Ti, $549 or $599 would make reviews more positive I think.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,846
4,806
136
can you blame gameworks for this kind of stuff, or is it more about quality of the drivers work from AMD?

Lol, game is not even stable on GT9xx, driver is crashing regularly according to hardware.fr who said that they had to run it several times to get some numbers, but hey, AMD drivers are the culprits..

A noter que le jeu s'est avéré instable sur les GeForce GTX 900. Un plantage du pilote survenait régulièrement, ce qui nous a demandé de recommencer plusieurs fois nos mesures.

It is at the end of the article if you want to chek with google translate :

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/937-20/benchmark-project-cars.html
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
Just admit it ...

AMD got conroe'd by Nvidia ...

Gameworks is not to blame here, it's either AMD's design team or their management and I'm thinking it's a little bit of both ...
No just no. This is no where close to a Conroe style situation you're insane to even try to compare it.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
Performance is within spitting distance of the 980 TI. Whereas the TI is already out and has a solid edge in most games the Fury X is smaller, quieter (depending on review site/method) and has reasonable power requirements.

That hardly qualifies as "conroe'd"

Fury won't be the outright win AMD wanted but it certainly isn't a failure of a product. If I had $650 burning a hole in my pocket for a new GPU I would say the stock water cooling and small form factor would be relevant buying considerations.

The card is slower for the same price. The size of the card is irrelevant. The radiator precludes the card from being used in most SFF cases, and even if it could fit, a blower design is much more desirable than blowing a whirlwind of hot air into a tiny case. As for noise, multiple sites note that the pump doesn't exactly qualify as silent. Could be a quality control issue which would be terrible since only reference designs can be used. Because of the radiator, it isn't ideal for multi card setups either. Who wants to try and squeeze, 2, 3 (4?) of these into a case. Again the size of the card is irrelevant when you have to find multiple mounting spots for the radiator.

AMD touted the overclocking ability of the card. OK, where is it? Did any site get more than 10%? Why would you boast about something like that a week before launch when you know the review samples sent out aren't capable of displaying that ability?

Unless you are a hardcore AMD fan who refuses to buy Nvidia, why would you choose a Fury X over a custom 980Ti?
 

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,120
260
136
No just no. This is no where close to a Conroe style situation you're insane to even try to compare it.

It pretty much is ...

Fiji is both late and it underperforms against the competition much like their K10 CPUs ...

Fiji would've been fine if it had released earlier and had some micro-architectural updates to gain some features but none of those things have happened ...
 

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,825
2,425
136
The card is slower for the same price. The size of the card is irrelevant. The radiator precludes the card from being used in most SFF cases, and even if it could fit, a blower design is much more desirable than blowing a whirlwind of hot air into a tiny case. As for noise, multiple sites note that the pump doesn't exactly qualify as silent. Could be a quality control issue which would be terrible since only reference designs can be used. Because of the radiator, it isn't ideal for multi card setups either. Who wants to try and squeeze, 2, 3 (4?) of these into a case. Again the size of the card is irrelevant when you have to find multiple mounting spots for the radiator.

AMD touted the overclocking ability of the card. OK, where is it? Did any site get more than 10%? Why would you boast about something like that a week before launch when you know the review samples sent out aren't capable of displaying that ability?

Unless you are a hardcore AMD fan who refuses to buy Nvidia, why would you choose a Fury X over a custom 980Ti?

Ok, you might have an argument with some SFF cases despite more of them being designed to work with water cooling easier but for even micro-atx let alone mid-atx cases? Its hard to fit a couple of 120-140mm rads? A fractal, corsair, nzxt, phanteks, thermaltake case made in the last couple of years? Nuts.
 

parvadomus

Senior member
Dec 11, 2012
685
14
81
I think AMD drivers are really sucking. The thing start performing better at higer resolutions, they are a CPU bottleneck at lower ones..
Plus the thing throttles like a bitch, I have seen overclocks of 150Mhz, and gains 5% performance, but consumes only 20watts more, its strange..