[Rumor (Various)] AMD R7/9 3xx / Fiji / Fury

[sze5003]

Reviews are all over the place, it almost makes me wonder if reviewers are using pre-launch drivers.

I haven't seen any new drivers, except the ones for batman.

 

[RaulF]

LOL what the heck are you two reading????? That's completely, 100%, wrong. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196.html

Earlier article from Singapore.

 

[redzo]

Maximum disappointment so far,

Their previous 7970/50ghz/280x and 290/x series were highly competitive(the 290 was a highly desirable product even with its flawed cooling). I was expecting at least a good price performance ratio compared to the 980ti, but this is not the case. No matter how cool the fury may seem, the numbers make it simply undesirable compared to a 980ti. Even worse, at current prices, the only desirable new 300 series GPU that I can think off is the 380 and maybe the 390(non x). The 390 non x must be available at a lower price than the current one.

I find the fury and its future siblings the worst in terms off longevity compared to the 7970 and 290. Except for the 380, I find their entire new lineup boringly uncompetitive price wise. Still, I'am hopping that a future price drop might help the 390. This, if AMD can afford
a price drop for the 390: to me, the 390 seems a beefier GPU in terms of component cost; I can't find a AMD alternative for those short PCB GTX 970's.

 

[sze5003]

Maximum disappointment so far,

Their previous 7970/50ghz/280x and 290/x series were highly competitive(the 290 was a highly desirable product even with its flawed cooling). I was expecting at least a good price performance ratio compared to the 980ti, but this is not the case. No matter how cool the fury may seem, the numbers make it simply undesirable compared to a 980ti. Even worse, at current prices, the only desirable new 300 series GPU that I can think off is the 380 and maybe the 390(non x). The 390 non x must be available at a lower price than the current one.

I find the fury and its future siblings the worst in terms off longevity compared to the 7970 and 290. Except for the 380, I find their entire new lineup boringly uncompetitive price wise. Still, I'am hopping that a future price drop might help the 390. This, if AMD can afford
a price drop for the 390: to me, the 390 seems a beefier GPU in terms of component cost; I can't find a AMD alternative for those short PCB GTX 970's.

What should it be though? It beats the 980ti by a bit in some marks and it is priced similar to its competition. I believe that's what they were going for. I haven't read all the reviews yet but even I'm not sure what to upgrade to now.

 

[RussianSensation]

What should it be though? It beats the 980ti by a bit in some marks and it is priced similar to its competition. I believe that's what they were going for. I haven't read all the reviews yet but even I'm not sure what to upgrade to now.

At current prices, get an after-market 980Ti. It should easily overclock to 1.4-1.5Ghz. EVGA SC+, Gigabyte G1 980Ti or MSI Gaming are all great options depending on your priorities. At 1440P, 980Ti OC is at least 20% faster than Fury X @ 1.135Ghz. You get 6GB of VRAM as a bonus. If you priorities out fo the box performance, Gigabyte G1 is the way to go. If you want quieter noise levels, grab the EVGA or the G1. And of course if the games you currently play run well to your liking on the 7970, you can always keep waiting to next gen. However, if you want to buy now and are willing to pay $660-680, get an after-market 980Ti. Overclocking in MSI AB should be a breeze, 5 min of work moving power target and temperature target to the max and then just cranking the GPU offset to +200-250mhz.

Since you already know that 980Ti > Fury X at 1080P and 1440P at stock speeds, here is a quick summary of both OC at 1440P:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37507613&postcount=187

 

[redzo]

What should it be though? It beats the 980ti by a bit in some marks and it is priced similar to its competition. I believe that's what they were going for. I haven't read all the reviews yet but even I'm not sure what to upgrade to now.

Didn't had enough time so far to read everything available also but what I personally got so far is:
- it's competitive at only 4k, but the -2GB off VRAM makes it pointless against a 980ti.
- it overall looses at less than 4k against a 980ti which comes with an additional 2GB of VRAM.

 

[RussianSensation]

Didn't had enough time so far to read everything available also but what I personally got so far is:
- it's competitive at only 4k, but the -2GB off VRAM makes it pointless against a 980ti.
- it overall looses at less than 4k against a 980ti which comes with an additional 2GB of VRAM.

The most important piece you missed:

After-market 980Ti is 20-25% faster with 0 overclocking required for $10-30 more. Even when overclocked to 1135mhz, 980Ti max OC is 24% faster at 1440P. That means without a driver fix and a voltage unlock on Fury X with 20%+ overclocking headroom, Fury X won't catch up, unless games start favouring Fury X architecture's strengths over Maxwell's GM200.

vs.

980Ti = 87%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 100% or 15% faster (1.15x)

If Fury X = 100%
GTX980Ti = 109%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 109% x (100%/87%) = 125%

 

[looncraz]

The takeaway from all the reviews is quite simple:

If you game at 4k, Fury is competitive. It runs very quiet, cool, and offers Right about the 980Ti level of performance. However, it only offers 4GB of RAM (which no review I read actually found to be a problem, interestingly) vs the 980Ti's 6GB and it lacks HDMI 2.0. Given the same price, I would be forced to recommend the GTX 980Ti over the Fury X for any case which could fit the card (almost all of them). And I'm an AMD fan, if anything.

If you game at any lower resolution, the Fury X will smash the normal 980, but trail the 980Ti by as much as 40% - while costing the same as the 980Ti. If you need to get that level of performance in a smaller form factor, you can only look at the Fury X. Otherwise, there is no point. In fact, there's no point in buying the 980Ti, Fury X, or often even the 980 or 2/390X at lower resolutions... A cheap R9 290 or GTX 970 will have you covered in effectively all games at max settings at or below 1440. The bulk of the market, at 1080p, need not worry about anything other than the 390 vs 970 comparison.

Basically, there's no compelling objective reason to purchase the Fury X for 90% of the potential market - unless AIO and size seals the deal for you. The Fury X pulls more power and delivers lower performance versus nVidia, but it is a major step up from the 2/390X in many ways - but its ROPs, pixel fill rate, and drivers are holding it back terribly.

However, the air-cooled version may make a very compelling product if it doesn't have a [severely] cut-down die. If priced $100 lower things turn around quickly, provided performance is not significantly lost. Frankly, this performance is what I expected from the Fiji Pro, not from the Fiji XT. The R9 Nano, however, priced appropriately, could be a real GTX 980 contender. If the Nano has 3072 shaders, it will beat the 980, use about the same amount of power, have the same amount of RAM, will be physically smaller, and hopefully cost the same - or less.

AMD should have led off with the Nano or at least ensured that overclocking worked on the Fury X. Unless, as the cynic in me would say, it is a horrible overclocker and extra voltage gets you nowhere fast and AMD didn't want that going into the launch reviews.

--

On a side note, did AMD not use Tonga's ROPs?? The performance characteristics are much more similar to the 290X and the 285 in this regard.

 

[crashtech]

They do seem to be selling a few; if indeed they were in stock in the first place, they aren't now at the vendors I normally use.

 

[gamervivek]

With DSR/VSR this lower resolution gaming or 4k monitors are expensive is moot unless you want 120Hz.

Since VSR shows negligible performance hit on Fury, it could open up a performance delta even higher than 4k.

AMD did use Tonga ROPs, Fury beats out 980Ti in that Vantage pixell fill test.

 

[LTC8K6]

The takeaway from all the reviews is quite simple:

If you game at 4k, Fury is competitive. It runs very quiet, cool, and offers Right about the 980Ti level of performance. However, it only offers 4GB of RAM (which no review I read actually found to be a problem, interestingly) vs the 980Ti's 6GB and it lacks HDMI 2.0. Given the same price, I would be forced to recommend the GTX 980Ti over the Fury X for any case which could fit the card (almost all of them). And I'm an AMD fan, if anything.

If you game at any lower resolution, the Fury X will smash the normal 980, but trail the 980Ti by as much as 40% - while costing the same as the 980Ti. If you need to get that level of performance in a smaller form factor, you can only look at the Fury X. Otherwise, there is no point. In fact, there's no point in buying the 980Ti, Fury X, or often even the 980 or 2/390X at lower resolutions... A cheap R9 290 or GTX 970 will have you covered in effectively all games at max settings at or below 1440. The bulk of the market, at 1080p, need not worry about anything other than the 390 vs 970 comparison.

Basically, there's no compelling objective reason to purchase the Fury X for 90% of the potential market - unless AIO and size seals the deal for you. The Fury X pulls more power and delivers lower performance versus nVidia, but it is a major step up from the 2/390X in many ways - but its ROPs, pixel fill rate, and drivers are holding it back terribly.

However, the air-cooled version may make a very compelling product if it doesn't have a [severely] cut-down die. If priced $100 lower things turn around quickly, provided performance is not significantly lost. Frankly, this performance is what I expected from the Fiji Pro, not from the Fiji XT. The R9 Nano, however, priced appropriately, could be a real GTX 980 contender. If the Nano has 3072 shaders, it will beat the 980, use about the same amount of power, have the same amount of RAM, will be physically smaller, and hopefully cost the same - or less.

AMD should have led off with the Nano or at least ensured that overclocking worked on the Fury X. Unless, as the cynic in me would say, it is a horrible overclocker and extra voltage gets you nowhere fast and AMD didn't want that going into the launch reviews.

--

On a side note, did AMD not use Tonga's ROPs?? The performance characteristics are much more similar to the 290X and the 285 in this regard.

Overclocking also favors the 980ti so far.

 

[Gunbuster]

It's pretty telling when ZERO of your AIB partners even bother to have a hero image of the Fury in the rotation on their respective website landing pages for graphics cards after you announce and reviews are out. Asus and MSI don't even acknowledge it's existence...

Heck the Gigabyte page is still an Nvidia full court press even when you select the AMD series.

(Why did I look? I was just hoping to make fun of some terrible box art of Ruby in some cyber thong but no luck there)

 

[poulinmaria]

I want this to be over already and to have full reviews.

 

[sze5003]

Looks like if I want to upgrade now I will need to go with a 980ti. Thanks for the summary guys I will read more when I get home. I don't play at higher than 1080p and I may get a bigger monitor later down the road. Maybe when I upgrade to skylake. Going to wait and see what happens to the 980ti prices now.

 

[exar333]

it's pretty telling when zero of your aib partners even bother to have a hero image of the fury in the rotation on their respective website landing pages for graphics cards after you announce and reviews are out. Asus and msi don't even acknowledge it's existence...

Heck the gigabyte page is still an nvidia full court press even when you select the amd series.

(why did i look? I was just hoping to make fun of some terrible box art of ruby in some cyber thong but no luck there)

lol

 

[007ELmO]

Looks like if I want to upgrade now I will need to go with a 980ti. Thanks for the summary guys I will read more when I get home. I don't play at higher than 1080p and I may get a bigger monitor later down the road. Maybe when I upgrade to skylake. Going to wait and see what happens to the 980ti prices now.

I bought a 980TI for only 1080p as well. It might be blasphemy to others but I don't want to dip below 60FPS on the projector. Witcher 3 will not struggle at all.

 

[Abwx]

The most important piece you missed:

After-market 980Ti is 20-25% faster with 0 overclocking required for $10-30 more. Even when overclocked to 1135mhz, 980Ti max OC is 24% faster at 1440P. That means without a driver fix and a voltage unlock on Fury X with 20%+ overclocking headroom, Fury X won't catch up, unless games start favouring Fury X architecture's strengths over Maxwell's GM200.
vs.

980Ti = 87%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 100% or 15% faster (1.15x)

If Fury X = 100%
GTX980Ti = 109%
Gigabyte G1 980Ti = 109% x (100%/87%) = 125%

People were doing those kind of computations one year ago with the previous gen, we all know where it ended....

 

[sze5003]

I bought a 980TI for only 1080p as well. It might be blasphemy to others but I don't want to dip below 60FPS on the projector. Witcher 3 will not struggle at all.

Yea for 1080p I don't think I'll notice a difference. I was expecting fury x to be at least 10% + better than 980ti and have great overclocking since its watercooled. At this point I'm questioning even spending $650 at all. I'd go with a evga 980ti or gigabyte.

 

[crashtech]

I thought this might be the year that hardware caught up to 4K bandwidth requirements. It doesn't seem like we are quite there in the majority of cases yet even with FreeSync, since below the monitor's minimum refresh tearing or flicking can still be evident.

 

[looncraz]

People were doing those kind of computations one year ago with the previous gen, we all know where it ended....

With the 290X beating the pants off the Titan and 780 so much that nVidia had to undercut their own top-end product with a higher-performing 780 Ti?

Also, if you see how the two lines have aged, it's quite an amazing difference. The 700 series is getting slower, but the 290X is still shining bright.

AMD really screwed up by over-focusing on 4k with the Fury, IMHO. It would not have been as bad if it also had HDMI 2.0, but the lack of that feature while targeting very segment of performance where it is needed most if just... odd.

I find it odd that AMD didn't ensure that voltage would be adjustable so the launch reviews could have some more positive points.

What I see is a card that falls between an OC'd 980 and a stock 980Ti, for the same price as the stock 980Ti, and offers a good AIO cooler. It isn't a bad deal, by any means, but even AMD talked it up more than it should have been.

So, the Fiji Pro and the Nano will be where the fun begins. Which, for me, is just fine. My only interest was in the Nano, anyway, to replace the 7870xt in my HTPC.

 

[Elixer]

So, the Fiji Pro and the Nano will be where the fun begins. Which, for me, is just fine. My only interest was in the Nano, anyway, to replace the 7870xt in my HTPC.

For most people, the Nano was the best announcement, but, one does have to wonder what it will end up being.
It still needs to beat the 390x, but, not the Fury, so, there isn't much margin there, and also sell for around $300-350ish.

 

[JDG1980]

So, the Fiji Pro and the Nano will be where the fun begins. Which, for me, is just fine. My only interest was in the Nano, anyway, to replace the 7870xt in my HTPC.

For HTPC use, there are two big knocks: the lack of HDMI 2.0 support (which may not matter in your use case) and the excessive power consumption during video decoding. They need to fix that next time around; there's no reason the whole GPU should have to run at full 3D clocks for the UVD to operate. (The multi-monitor power consumption was fixed as a side effect of the move to HBM.)

 

[Hitman928]

For HTPC use, there are two big knocks: the lack of HDMI 2.0 support (which may not matter in your use case) and the excessive power consumption during video decoding. They need to fix that next time around; there's no reason the whole GPU should have to run at full 3D clocks for the UVD to operate. (The multi-monitor power consumption was fixed as a side effect of the move to HBM.)

That's strange, computerbase found that Fury took significantly less (30-70 W) power to decode H.264 and H.265. I wonder if the Nvidia solution is putting more stress on the cpu during decode? Or maybe there's just a difference between BR and H.26x power consumption for both card lines.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/...8/#diagramm-video-decodieren-h265-lav-filters

 

[JDG1980]

That's strange, computerbase found that Fury took significantly less (30-70 W) power to decode H.264 and H.265. I wonder if the Nvidia solution is putting more stress on the cpu during decode? Or maybe there's just a difference between BR and H.26x power consumption for both card lines.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/...8/#diagramm-video-decodieren-h265-lav-filters

Am I reading that right? The GPU used higher wattage on 1080p than on 4K? Was that because the 4K was bottlenecked by the limits of the UVD block and handled fewer frames? (It looks like this is a synthetic test with the decoding going full throttle, not a normal playback.)

 

[sandorski]

Well, not as good as I expected, but competitive with 980Ti. Will be interesting to see the longterm with Driver updates and what not. Although that's not a guarantee of eventual overtaking of the 980Ti, as Nvidia could do Driver improvements as well.

The strengths are clearly in card size, noise, and Stock Cooling solution. I'm sure they will Sell, but I suspect that the Fury Pro will be an even more compelling Product, having better Overclocking capability, Lower Price, and even better Performance due to increased Overclocking headroom(that's dependent on whether AMD releases software tweaking tools for the Fury X).

It is more a niche Product than the 980Ti. Good for those who Game at 4k, but who want a smaller size and quieter cooling solution. Even then it doesn't win by default as anyone who Needs HDMI 2.0 is out of luck, but for those that don't it is a compelling Product.

I think everyone can agree that a year from now we'll all be happy to leave .28 behind. It has served us well, but it has stuck around far too long already.