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

[[jF]]

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.

Their *is* no inventory, that's the main problem! (other than the whining cards)

The UK got a whole 40 units (ish) at launch and nothing since!! Nothing significant is coming through for at least another couple of weeks. Not good all round.

 

[n0x1ous]

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%.

I agree I think its going to be close to the X especially at 1080 and 1440p where the fury x probably has shaders going unutilized due to the imbalanced design.

 

[railven]

Their *is* no inventory, that's the main problem! (other than the whining cards)

The UK got a whole 40 units (ish) at launch and nothing since!! Nothing significant is coming through for at least another couple of weeks. Not good all round.[/QUOTE]

I agree, that is a huge problem. Which is why it's hard to say sales are weak, unless they mean total sales, but that's tied to inventory which is (yes) very weak.

I took it as "we can't sell the damn things" weak not "we can't get the damn things to sell them" weak.

 

[[jF]]

I said pre-orders are weak, but I agree in the fact that if stock isn't available then it will affect the buyer's perception. All-in-all I'm thinking that it probably affected AMD's decision to bring forward the Pro's launch date (and let's hope ffs that they have more stock!!!)

 

[Elixer]

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.

Pretty much this.

They ARE selling them, as fast as they can get them in.
http://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/r9furyx/full_history.php
Nobody has any solid numbers except for AMD, and they aren't talking.

The big question now is, if the Fury does launch later today, and they have ample supply, is it because these didn't make the cut for the Fury X, which might be the case for any new tech...

Could also be that they are having very good yields, but, somehow, I don't think AMD will be that lucky.

 

[n0x1ous]

If only AMD would have waited to launch fury x with the 15.7 drivers and kept the bad pumps out of the channel this launch could have looked much more positive then it ended up being. Reviewers aren't going to Rebench the fury x after they just finished exhaustive reviews.

 

[Elixer]

If only AMD would have waited to launch fury x with the 15.7 drivers and kept the bad pumps out of the channel this launch could have looked much more positive then it ended up being. Reviewers aren't going to Rebench the fury x after they just finished exhaustive reviews.

I dunno about that, if the Fury results are looking much higher than what we see for the Fury X, and we know the Fury is cut down, we can extrapolate if the delta is too high, and if so, it would mean they would need to correct the Fury X reviews/benches... I am unsure if AMD lets everyone keep their cards or not, I just know that AT said they got 1 freebie.
So, I can see some sites post "updates" if this is indeed the case.

 

[Subyman]

Its my understanding that there is not a reference design at all for Fury. All models will be custom. AMD is selling the chip and AIBs can make whatever they want. That means there will be no models offered from Gigabyte or MSI at all. This doesn't bode well IMO.

 

[happy medium]

Why not be happy there is now a premium product for HTPC users?

I thought that was the 175$ gtx960 or the 125$ 950ti? WHy would anyone pay 500$ for a 175 watt HTPC card?
So you can play games?

 

[atticus14]

I thought that was the 175$ gtx960 or the 125$ 950ti? WHy would anyone pay 500$ for a 175 watt HTPC card?
So you can play games?

I would say, yes, most people would enjoy playing games in their pimped out media room or at least on the big screen + audio system at times depending on the game.

 

[yacoub]

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

Fury X needs to be $599 based on its specs and how it performs vs 980Ti, so take the expensive water cooler off it and this definitely needs to be no more than $499 if they want to gain marketshare.

 

[SimianR]

Its my understanding that there is not a reference design at all for Fury. All models will be custom. AMD is selling the chip and AIBs can make whatever they want. That means there will be no models offered from Gigabyte or MSI at all. This doesn't bode well IMO.

I'm guessing it's because right now AMD has a lot of products in a very narrow price range and performance level. They have the 390X, Fury, Fury X and the Nano* all of which fall between the 980 and the 980 Ti (sometimes the Fury X trading blows with the Ti, obviously). Maybe MSI just doesn't see the financial point in investing into a product in a niche price range when they've done a great job on the 390/390X.

 

[Head1985]

Fury X needs to be $599 based on its specs and how it performs vs 980Ti, so take the expensive water cooler off it and this definitely needs to be no more than $499 if they want to gain marketshare.

nobody complains to 500/550usd GTX980 but when AMD releases faster card for 550USD than GTX980 then its overpriced:biggrin:
if its faster than GTX980 it can be more expensive.

 

[coercitiv]

[EDITED] just realized we're on AMD forum.

 

[flopper]

nobody complains to 500/550usd GTX980 but when AMD releases faster card for 550USD than GTX980 then its overpriced:biggrin:
if its faster than GTX980 it can be more expensive.

Exactly and unless nvidia drop prices it stays that way.

 

[3DVagabond]

nVidia boys want it to be cheaper so it forces a price drop from nVidia.

Pricing is dictated by supply vs demand. Right now demand is higher so prices are too.

This is from Asus (via TPU). They sell both AMD and nVidia, so should be neutral.

 

[Silverforce11]

Fury X needs to be $599 based on its specs and how it performs vs 980Ti, so take the expensive water cooler off it and this definitely needs to be no more than $499 if they want to gain marketshare.

Doesn't matter, it's all sold out.

I contacted a few retailers here, they all have a long wait/pre-order list on the next shipment. I can't even buy Fury X if I were in the market for a pair for 4K action.

Hopefully Fury Pro has volume to meet the demands.

ps. 15.7 is making Fury X 5-20% faster from user reports. Definitely will change the competitive landscape.

 

[MeldarthX]

I'm not sure who said all of UK only got 40 Fury Xs but that's so wrong. OCUK got more than that alone....

Yep stock is seriously limited on FuryX; but have a feeling Fury should be ok - not sure if its the pump that or the chip.....we should be getting more a lot more soon enough

 

[casiofx]

nVidia boys want it to be cheaper so it forces a price drop from nVidia.

Pricing is dictated by supply vs demand. Right now demand is higher so prices are too.

This is from Asus (via TPU). They sell both AMD and nVidia, so should be neutral.

Not really convincing performance since Fury doesn't scale that well into lower resolutions and GTX980 can be OCed alot.

 

[flopper]

Doesn't matter, it's all sold out.

I contacted a few retailers here, they all have a long wait/pre-order list on the next shipment. I can't even buy Fury X if I were in the market for a pair for 4K action.

Hopefully Fury Pro has volume to meet the demands.

ps. 15.7 is making Fury X 5-20% faster from user reports. Definitely will change the competitive landscape.

removing cpu overhead a bit, saw one guy on a 8320 had a 30% boost in a game for him.
windows 10 will help amd even on the dx11 path and they are working harder than ever on the drivers

 

[wand3r3r]

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!!!!"



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



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."

Yet clearly none of that matters. They are selling whatever they can produce so the name clearly doesn't "deter" people in the way that you see it. I could care less about the name, the $/performance is what I do care about and I vote with my wallet.

 

[3DVagabond]

Not really convincing performance since Fury doesn't scale that well into lower resolutions and GTX980 can be OCed alot.

So the new go to metric is lower resolution. It gets more and more ridiculous how far people will reach to try and show nVidia in a better light.

 

[Head1985]

So the new go to metric is lower resolution. It gets more and more ridiculous how far people will reach to try and show nVidia in a better light.

+ Fury have 1000Mhz clock.After voltage is unlocked it should Oc to 1200Mhz and thats +20% performance.
Same as GTX980 after OC
1260Mhz stock
1500Mhz OC thats +20%.

 

[Gikaseixas]

So the new go to metric is lower resolution. It gets more and more ridiculous how far people will reach to try and show nVidia in a better light.

Noticed people downplaying 4K as not as popular in gamer communities but they forget that we're talking about top cards here.

Also, where are the guys shouting 4gb HBM wasn't gona cut it???? Now that Fury X beats 980ti SLI @ 4k

 

[Silverforce11]

So the new go to metric is lower resolution. It gets more and more ridiculous how far people will reach to try and show nVidia in a better light.

15.7 fixes the 1080/1440p issue, lots of people on forums & reddit are seeing massive gains.

Also a few of the upcoming games for DX12 is sponsored by AMD*, Battlefront, Deus Ex, Hitman, all big AAA titles.. things are looking up for AMD! Now all they need is to release vcore modding tools.

* Seriously if AMD wanted to neuter Kepler/Maxwell with DX12, they'll just have games use more asynchronous compute features (remember the E3 event with devs showcasing compute usage in DX12 games, basically "free performance on GCN!"). Tonga, Hawaii, Fiji all have 8 Compute ACE that can handle those tasks with much more throughput than NV's current uarch (Maxwell 2 IIRC is limited to 64 compute OR 1 rendering + 1 compute, Kepler would just facepalm and weep in a corner).