[OCUK, Videocardz] Fury Pro launch moved to July 10th

[n0x1ous]

Apparently the originally scheduled July 14th launch has been moved to July 10th. Confirmed by leaked slides and an AMD rep on the OCUK Forums. Guru3d is also reporting that Gigabyte and Msi have no plans to make a regular Fury which sounds like they don't think its going to do very well.

Asus Strix with custom PCB (and DVI port - thanks SK10H!) and Sapphire Tri-x with reference PCB are shown in the slide decks.

discuss!

relevant links:

http://videocardz.com/57177/amd-radeon-r9-fury-launches-tomorrow

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28290065&postcount=110

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-strix-radeon-r9-fury-surfaces.html

 

[SK10H]

Yes, Asus Strix for DVI.
Still a bit disappointed on 3584sp though. There probably no chance to unlock to 4096 sp unlike previous reference board.

 

[DiogoDX]

19 hours to go.

http://sapphirenation.net/theclock/

 

[railven]

Does this include the newer drivers or is that still for another date? Interested to see where Fury X lands if new drivers included. Also, if OC/OV is included.

We can finally get the "whole" picture. Too late for me, but always eager to see Radeon releases

 

[DiogoDX]

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-fury-details-exposed/

 

[Rvenger]

If the AIBs are choosing not to even make a custom Fury Pro, this is not a good thing at all. I bet this thing might only be as fast as a 390x judging by the marketing slide that says "Faster than GTX 980 at 4K".

 

[Head1985]

If the AIBs are choosing not to even make a custom Fury Pro, this is not a good thing at all. I bet this thing might only be as fast as a 390x judging by the marketing slide that says "Faster than GTX 980 at 4K".

no fury will have same performance like FURY X -5% on same clock max.

 

[Rvenger]

no fury will have same performance like FURY X -5% on same clock max.

I hope so, then it will all depend on the price at that point.

It needs to be $499.

 

[Head1985]

I hope so, then it will all depend on the price at that point.

It needs to be $499.

Why?It will be 20-30% faster than GTX980

 

[n0x1ous]

Why?It will be 20-30% faster than GTX980

Fury X isnt even that much faster than 980 in a lot of benches

 

[nitromullet]

Why?It will be 20-30% faster than GTX980

because the GTX 980 is overpriced, and AMD themselves are comparing Fury to the GTX 980 (not Ti) in their own slides.

 

[flopper]

Why?It will be 20-30% faster than GTX980

slides indicate differently.
just saying

 

[LTC8K6]

"up to" again?

 

[cen1]

Considering that 390X basically ties with 980 there is no way Fury is slower or tied, if anything it must be consistently faster. Then again, I'd rather wait for reviews than coming to final conclusions because you never know..

 

[Gikaseixas]

So we will get reviews tomorrow?

 

[flopper]

So we will get reviews tomorrow?

yep

 

[railven]

If the AIBs are choosing not to even make a custom Fury Pro, this is not a good thing at all. I bet this thing might only be as fast as a 390x judging by the marketing slide that says "Faster than GTX 980 at 4K".

I assume when you say custom Fury Pro you mean the PCB?

Is this just for now or are AIB not bothering with custom board Fiji products?

If this trend continues Nano will be locked to 8pin connector too, I'd assume.

 

[railven]

You know what, looking over the slides I just realized something.

WTH is the Fury name for? I thought the Fury name was brought back to indicate a premium product, ala GTX Titan. How is it a premium product if it's got 4 levels?

Will this just be the new name for the top tier cards? It feels like AMD just added more names to their product stack for no reason.

 

[tential]

Considering that 390X basically ties with 980 there is no way Fury is slower or tied, if anything it must be consistently faster. Then again, I'd rather wait for reviews than coming to final conclusions because you never know..

It would be the nail in the coffin for AMD if Fury performed worse than the GTX 980. Their marketshare would fall so low I don't think it'd be possible to recover no matter how good the next gen is.

My only guess is that Fury Pro is looking nice and AMD doesn't see a reason to wait on it when their Fury X is out of stock.

 

[tential]

You know what, looking over the slides I just realized something.

WTH is the Fury name for? I thought the Fury name was brought back to indicate a premium product, ala GTX Titan. How is it a premium product if it's got 4 levels?

Will this just be the new name for the top tier cards? It feels like AMD just added more names to their product stack for no reason.

Titan
Titan Black
Titan Z

?

Fury Pro
Fury X
Fury (Monster)

Then AMD decided to give you a high performance ultra small card for HTPC with Fury Nano? Why complain? Why not be happy there is now a premium product for HTPC users? I'm sure they're happy...

I'd be happy except I'm not one of these HTPC users that use a tiny case. I don't get it at all. I just use a normal case and put it behind the TV stand.... Boom, no more restrictions on parts.... dunno why people hinder themselves so hard but hey, the Nano is for those people who need tiny enclosures! So I'm quite happy AMD made such a product, and if I had the money to hobble myself into a tiny enclosure for fun on the side, I'd get that because that's just cool.

I can't see how it's a bad strategy tbh. Add 1 more card in for the ultra small form factor crowd if the Nano was cut down and cheap my cousin would probably be getting it instead of an R9 290.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Non-reference Fury's that outperform a 980 by 15% would be an attractive option at $499.

But I don't have high hopes there will be adequate stock of these cards anyway.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm guessing Fury Pro is gonna be within 5% of X. The X front-end cannot sustain 4k shaders (hence the weak performance at lower resolution, a known trade-off in the design) so the drop to ~3.5k shaders will have minimal impact.

I suspect the gap will widen in DX12 games that use asynchronous compute, but in DX11, ~5%.

 

[railven]

Titan
Titan Black
Titan Z

?

Fury Pro
Fury X
Fury (Monster)

Nvidia "Titan will be our premium product!"
Titan $1000 on 02/2013 succeed by Titan Black $1000 on 02/2014 succeed by Titan X $1000 on 03/2015
Titan Z was terrible and Nvidia should be laughed at for it, regardless - $3000 on 5/2014

So only during that short stint of Titan Black and Titan Z were two Titans marketed/promoted.

AMD "Fury will be our premium product"
Fury X $650 6/2015! And here comes Fury $550 07/2015 with Fury Nano <$550 08/2015 and Fury X2 probably ~$1000 09/2015

So in 4 months AMD created 4 pieces to the Fury name. They literally redid a shuffle of what they did from 5870 to 6970. "Our old top name is now our mid name and we got a new top name!!!!"

Then AMD decided to give you a high performance ultra small card for HTPC with Fury Nano? Why complain? Why not be happy there is now a premium product for HTPC users? I'm sure they're happy...

I'd be happy except I'm not one of these HTPC users that use a tiny case. I don't get it at all. I just use a normal case and put it behind the TV stand.... Boom, no more restrictions on parts.... dunno why people hinder themselves so hard but hey, the Nano is for those people who need tiny enclosures! So I'm quite happy AMD made such a product, and if I had the money to hobble myself into a tiny enclosure for fun on the side, I'd get that because that's just cool.

I don't even know the performance of Nano, so I really can't comment

I can't see how it's a bad strategy tbh. Add 1 more card in for the ultra small form factor crowd if the Nano was cut down and cheap my cousin would probably be getting it instead of an R9 290.

I dunno, but I was thinking Fury X would be their Titan, ie their top card - I was even worried it would be >$800. Because they were chasing Nvidia at that Halo ceiling fringe card status.

Nope, just another layer on the family circus. I'm sure it isn't a bad marketing strategy, it basically resets their whole hierarchy, yet again, but looking at the slides - I realized it already feels rather watered down. But that's just me.

EDIT: My observation of most people's reaction on forums when they see someone has a Titan in their sig:
1) that person got money
2) that person is an idiot for spending all that money on that

I don't think Fury X (let alone the lower versions) will carry that response. IE, I guess I misunderstood AMD's wording for "Premium like Titan."

 

[[jF]]

It would be the nail in the coffin for AMD if Fury performed worse than the GTX 980. Their marketshare would fall so low I don't think it'd be possible to recover no matter how good the next gen is.

My only guess is that Fury Pro is looking nice and AMD doesn't see a reason to wait on it when their Fury X is out of stock.

From what I'm hearing from retail sources Fury X pre-orders/sales are quite weak. I'm guessing they're hoping pulling forward the Fury Pro launch will improve things somewhat...

 

[railven]

From what I'm hearing from retail sources Fury X pre-orders/sales are quite weak. I'm guessing they're hoping pulling forward the Fury Pro launch will improve things somewhat...

This makes no sense. Pre-orders, up in the air, but you can't say sales are weak when retailers can't keep inventory.

If sales were weak, their would be some Fury X left unsold.