Official Fury X specs

[Grooveriding]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLLxFNkwgas

http://support.amd.com/Documents/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x.pdf

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2937...x-tech-specs-and-design-details-revealed.html

4GB HBM Memory
4096 Cores @ 1050 Mhz
8.9 billion transistors
AIO water cooled
275W TDP
$649 USD
Release date is June 24th

Now that we have real specs and are out of rumour mode. There is a thread in general for rumours and related flame wars or discussing the still unreleased specs of the R9 3 series cards

I am planning a day one purchase if reviews have this card faster than a 980ti.

 

[mindbomb]

I'm pretty impressed that the tdp is so low. The 290x was similiar clockspeed, much less cores, and like 300 watts in uber mode. Also, they said the cooler on the fury x is rated for up to 500w, so it should be inaudible, even at full load.

 

[erunion]

I am planning a day one purchase if reviews have this card faster than a 980ti.

If Fiji was faster AMD would have said so.

 

[SimianR]

Any word on when we'll see reviews? Also any confirmation on the number of ROP's?

 

[TemjinGold]

Ahhh hahaha... "ARE YOU READY... TO WAIT SOME MORE?"

 

[happy medium]

If Fiji was faster AMD would have said so.

Oh I didn't see the video, so AMD never said fastest card in the world or nothing like that?
Your right that's a sign its not gonna be faster, in games at least.

 

[Stuka87]

Oh I didn't see the video, so AMD never said fastest card in the world or nothing like that?
Your right that's a sign its not gonna be faster, in games at least.

AMD stated the Fury X2 is the fastest card in the world. Since it is technically faster than the Fury X, they would not state this for both of them.

We have to wait and see if th Fury X is the fastest single GPU card or not.

 

[Stuka87]

If Fiji was faster AMD would have said so.

No they would not have, I do not recall them ever saying how much faster their top end card is than the competition during a release event. Partly because the card is not actually released yet. We have to wait for reviews before we know anything at all.

 

[Glo.]

If Fiji was faster AMD would have said so.

Well its odd to say about Fiji GPU that its fastest card in the world if you are preaparing GPU thats made of two of those dies. And because of that "logic" assuming that its not faster than Titan X is even more odd.

We still have to wait for reviews.

 

[lyssword]

so, these leaks were right all along?

 

[Grooveriding]

If Fiji was faster AMD would have said so.

Once in a while they will drop that line and I think AMD even dropped it today, didn't see a slide saying that though. It's too ambiguous when it's coming from the companies themselves to mean anything. It could be in one game or just the right settings etc. Reviews will be the true answer of that question. It definitely has the potential to exceed GM200. 9 billion transistors, very fast memory and a superior cooling solution. Reviews will be pitting a Fury X against their stock Titan X results, I think the Titan X could reasonably come out behind, in fact I think it's likely Titan X will be slower on average.

I'm interested in the whole package though so want to see overclocking potential as well. I've seen what the Gigabyte aftermarket 980ti does at 1500mhz and it's about 15% over the stock performance of that card and consumes about 300W once overclocked. That is about the benchmark area I want to see Fury X exceed with overclocking. I haven't used AMD in a while, but in the past they had much more liberal voltage controls compared to the paltry amounts nvidia gives these days. It's really down to how the card does at stock and how much gas is left in the tank after that.

 

[RussianSensation]

Oh I didn't see the video, so AMD never said fastest card in the world or nothing like that?
Your right that's a sign its not gonna be faster, in games at least.

Really? 4096 shaders, 512GB/sec and > 1050mhz clocks and you expect it to not beat a reference 980Ti? 980Ti is less than 40% faster at 4K and on specs Fury X is at least faster than a 290X:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html

The key variable is OC vs. OC performance. 980Ti is a beast with 20-30% more performance once OC.

 

[Majcric]

I'm curious to see how the 4GB of HBM Memory will play out. I know next to nothing about this memory. With it being a faster type will it require less?

I see as much as 5500 Vram usage in SoM. And a few other games are passing over 4. I used to think this didn't matter as long as the card wasn't choking and hitting a VRAM wall, but since moving away from 2gb I notice a significant difference in textures/IQ.

 

[Face2Face]

Really? 4096 shaders, 512GB/sec and > 1050mhz clocks and you expect it to not beat a reference 980Ti? 980Ti is less than 40% faster at 4K and on specs Fury X is at least faster than a 290X:
http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti/31.html

The key variable is OC vs. OC performance. 980Ti is a beast with 20-30% more performance once OC.

30% is kind of stretching it without a BIOS mod. It thinks it's more like 5-20%

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_980_ti_g1_gaming_soc_review,36.html

Most of these games tested are seeing gains in 10-12% range @ 1080p and 1440/1600p with a healthy OC, stabilizing at around 1450-1477MHz.

I'm hoping that Fury X has some overclocking headroom though. I'm hoping an extra 150-250Mhz on the core. I'm sure a 1300MHz Fury X would be a screamer.

 

[therealnickdanger]

The key variable is OC vs. OC performance. 980Ti is a beast with 20-30% more performance once OC.

This is what I want to see in benchmarks. Stock vs stock and OC vs OC.

 

[xthetenth]

35% from the lowest boost clock to the reference boost clock for a 20% gain opens up room for Fury to clock up less but scale better.

 

[happy medium]

The key variable is OC vs. OC performance. 980Ti is a beast with 20-30% more performance once OC.

This....

It will have to beat non reference gtx980ti's, if not well its not the fastest gpu in the world.

Then it will have to contend with a full aftermarket 200 chip/overclocked gtx980ti next, im assuming.

 

[happy medium]

30% is kind of stretching it without a BIOS mod. It thinks it's more like 5-20%

Look at this beast gtx980ti..32fps faster than stock!. think the fury will beat it?
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/33.html

 

[Face2Face]

Look at this beast gtx980ti... think the fury will beat it?
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_G1_Gaming/33.html

Won't know until I see what she can do

I see where RS got the 30% now.

 

[Osjur]

Official specs:

 

[happy medium]

Won't know until I see what she can do

I see where RS got the 30% now.

If fury beats that and does it at under 300watts, i'll give AMD some props.:thumbsup:

Edit: just seen the chart above 275 watts for fury, I don't think it will win under 300 watts. Still could be faster but she might be a furnace.

 

[Head1985]

Official specs:

64Rops disappointing

 

[Face2Face]

If fury beats that and does it at under 300watts, i'll give AMD some props.:thumbsup:

Edit: just seen the chart above 275 watts for fury, I don't think it will win under 300 watts. Still could be faster but she might be a furnace.

I definitely don't think it could beat custom 980Ti models using less than 300 watts. I could be wrong though 24th can't come soon enough.

 

[Headfoot]

For the record, anyone who used stock 290x performance figures to compare against aftermarket 970/980 has no right to say 980 Ti aftermarket is the chip to beat.

For the rest of us who compared apples to apples, carry on.

 

[MrTeal]

If fury beats that and does it at under 300watts, i'll give AMD some props.:thumbsup:

Edit: just seen the chart above 275 watts for fury, I don't think it will win under 300 watts. Still could be faster but she might be a furnace.

You'll only give AMD props if they can beat the performance of the G1 Gaming overclocked 158MHz, while staying under the 300W it draws on stock clocks?

Tough crowd.