When will we see Fury reviews?

[DarkKnightDude]

If there's extra VRAM, games will use it. I've used a 2GB 770 without problems in all the games Ive played, like maxing BF4, etc.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Who cares?

It will either matter when people play the games on their PC, or it won't.

Reviews won't change what happens with the end user.

Reviews heavily influence what people buy so of course it matters.

 

[showb1z]

Who cares?

It will either matter when people play the games on their PC, or it won't.

Reviews won't change what happens with the end user.

Really? You don't think people who buy $250+ GPU's look at reviews?
Reviews of 290X with the abysmal stock cooler tarnished that card's reputation for it's entire lifespan. There are a bunch of great aftermarket 290's, with none of the issues of the reference card, at no extra cost. Yet even now, sites (including Anand) still use the reference 290X benchmark numbers.
AMD's rep for being hot and loud got cemented there with the average gamer. And a lot of them are still convinced their driver support is atrocious as well .
It's a hard thing to shake such perceptions.

So yea, putting the focus on VRAM now is a great strategy to diminish enthusiasm for Fury.

 

[guskline]

Joe Macri, in his previous statements recently about the Fury and "only" having 4 TRUE gig of Vram, though HBM, not DDR5 addressed the issue by mentioning that AMD assigned engineers specifically to address this issue through software (BTW just the same as Nvidia mentioned it with the GTX970)

If Nvidia fans are going to BASH the Fury because of that, how do they defend the GTX970 (other than price)?

The true story here is that Nvidia has developed a culture of almost rabid type fan support. They have to be careful attacking the "weakness" of the Fury (4G Vram) because as I said they did the very same thing with the GTX970 (Except they did NOT truly disclose the 3.5 +.5 memory configuration until called out on it by reviewers brave enough to challenge them.) When "outed" they said they could deal with the issue with software compression.

Contrast that with Macri openly disclosing the known problem, 4 G Vram on the first generation BEFORE release and addressing how AMD was dealing with it. He said he assigned engineers to maximize the 4G potential.

I think Titan X is a great card but overpriced and the GTX980TI is probably the pinnacle of DDR5 performance but if AMD is correct (and I think they are with Nvidia's admission that Pascal will be a HBM2 card) the way forward with gpu development is with HBM type of memory.

I expect this to be a vicious fight between the Fury and 980TI - first generation of new type of memory and less of it vs the "pinnacle of DDR5 and 1.5 time more of it.

 

[sze5003]

In the other thread they were saying reviews should start coming in Thursday. The fury x will be available on the 24th to purchase.

This will probably be my next card unless I should go with fury pro but for the extra $100 you get water cooling. No point in going with the 390 or 390x unless they are 50% better than the current 290x and I don't think they are. They are more efficient and a bit better so its hard to say those are straight rebrands.

 

[LTC8K6]

In the other thread they were saying reviews should start coming in Thursday. The fury x will be available on the 24th to purchase.

This will probably be my next card unless I should go with fury pro but for the extra $100 you get water cooling. No point in going with the 390 or 390x unless they are 50% better than the current 290x and I don't think they are. They are more efficient and a bit better so its hard to say those are straight rebrands.

The other cards look to be straight rebrands:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37488414&postcount=1

 

[sze5003]

The other cards look to be straight rebrands:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37488414&postcount=1

Yea I don't see them selling well when people can buy 2x 290x cards for cheap now. Or just get a fury pro. I'm definitely interested in reviews for the fury x. Planning to order one as soon as I hear good news then sell my 7970.

 

[flopper]

Reviews heavily influence what people buy so of course it matters.

Hum actually it does not.
Most are buying what friends say or more futureproof with more ram.
the tech people who read and follow forums with hardware isnt a typical consumer.
My sister for example have no idea AMD unleashed the best card in history for PC gaming.

I do but I read such forums and attend presentations.

 

[Silverforce11]

When a professional review site doesn't understand the difference between required VRAM usage vs. dynamic VRAM usage in a modern PC game, that is an eye-opener.

Excellent post RS. I'll referencing it next time someone who doesn't understand the simple concept of vram usage in their monitoring software doesn't equate to vram required.

I thought it was lol-worthy that [H]'s article and phrasing "6GB is the MINIMUM for 4K" is so well timed, even when their own results show otherwise (980SLI & R295X faster than 980Ti/Titan X!). Those guys are a bunch of sellouts.

 

[Despoiler]

When a professional review site doesn't understand the difference between required VRAM usage vs. dynamic VRAM usage in a modern PC game, that is an eye-opener.

Agree completely. It's becoming more and more apparent that the many review sites don't have very good observation and critical thinking skills. At worst they are shilling for one side or the other.

A couple of additional points about the handful of games that exceed 4GB. COD AW you have to disable pre-caching in the options in order for it to exceed 4GB. Shadows of Mordor you have to install the ultra texture pack. There is not really any perceptible difference in quality. At least not enough to justify the performance hit. Either way it is not the normal operation in these games to exceed 4GB. Using them as an example to justify a position that > 4GB is required is doubly irresponsible.

 

[Spanners]

How are you going to determine how much a game actually "needs"? Serious question. Short of swapping cards with similar GPU but with less ram until you find the point performance drops, how would you differentiate what a game requires vs what it's using? Doesn't sound like an easy thing to do without intimate knowledge of the game engine and even then you're probably only looking at a rough estimate. Unless you have a practical way of making such a determination, you're not really in a good position to berate reviews documenting VRAM usage.

Play/bench the game and if it's a stuttering mess and reducing the texture quality or AA returns it to smoothness then it "needs" that amount of VRAM. If it uses for example 5.5GB on a GTX 980ti but the relative framerates/frametimes are still good on a GTX 980 at the same settings then it's just caching assets it can and doesn't "need" that much VRAM. That would be my guess anyway.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Hum actually it does not.
Most are buying what friends say or more futureproof with more ram.
the tech people who read and follow forums with hardware isnt a typical consumer.
My sister for example have no idea AMD unleashed the best card in history for PC gaming.

I do but I read such forums and attend presentations.

So you would never advise your sister on what is the best card to get? That's unusual because many people that are not tech savvy ask people that are, this is how a reputation is built. I've seen this happen since forever. Otherwise the average buying would have little to no idea at all what is "good" and what is not.

 

[flopper]

So you would never advise your sister on what is the best card to get? That's unusual because many people that are not tech savvy ask people that are, this is how a reputation is built. I've seen this happen since forever. Otherwise the average buying would have little to no idea at all what is "good" and what is not.

she dosnt buy cards.

Anyone here already knows Fury is the best cards ever.

 

[happy medium]

Reviews heavily influence what people buy so of course it matters.

So I guess the next question is , why do you care so much what other people buy?:whiste:

 

[AnandThenMan]

she dosnt buy cards.

Oh. Then I'm wondering why you used someone that will never be in the market for a video card as an example.

 

[Spanners]

So I guess the next question is , why do you care so much what other people buy?:whiste:

I don't think the statement that reviews influence people purchasing decisions therefore they matter, really implies he cares personally what video card a specific person buys. Just my take though not putting words in his mouth. Maybe he cares deeply what card you buy!

 

[AnandThenMan]

^^ Well said thanks.

 

[Despoiler]

Not really a review, but AMD did have a performance related slide in their Chinese presentation. You are seeing that correct. Fury X MIN FPS is higher than Titan X MAX FPS in FC4 4k.

http://live.pconline.com.cn/483.html

 

[Squeetard]

What a [redacted] slide. No numbers on the time axis, could be one second for all we know. This from a guy who will probably buy one. I just hate the fud.


Keep your posts professional. Profanity isn't allowed in VC&G.

-Elfear

 

[TemjinGold]

What a [redacted] slide. No numbers on the time axis, could be one second for all we know. This from a guy who will probably buy one. I just hate the fud.

Seriously? If that really was for 1 second, do you honestly think AMD or any other company is dumb enough to present that slide?

 

[sam_816]

What a [redacted] slide. No numbers on the time axis, could be one second for all we know. This from a guy who will probably buy one. I just hate the fud.

For a company standing at 20% market share mis-representing figures can have serious backlash.. I think AMD is not that stupid.

 

[Stuka87]

What a [redacted] slide. No numbers on the time axis, could be one second for all we know. This from a guy who will probably buy one. I just hate the fud.

Well, its certainly more than a second. Being that each point represents at least one second. You cannot get frames per second without running for at least one second for each point represented. So I am really not sure that it matters if there is not a time scale.

The bigger question is where the test was run. A demanding area, or less demanding area.

 

[sze5003]

Seriously? If that really was for 1 second, do you honestly think AMD or any other company is dumb enough to present that slide?

Those numbers are probably just a base average and there is an astriks there too. If it didn't mean anything why would they show it? They just want to show people a small example..reviews will be out soon anyway.

 

[Innokentij]

Really? You don't think people who buy $250+ GPU's look at reviews?
Reviews of 290X with the abysmal stock cooler tarnished that card's reputation for it's entire lifespan. There are a bunch of great aftermarket 290's, with none of the issues of the reference card, at no extra cost. Yet even now, sites (including Anand) still use the reference 290X benchmark numbers.
AMD's rep for being hot and loud got cemented there with the average gamer. And a lot of them are still convinced their driver support is atrocious as well .
It's a hard thing to shake such perceptions.

So yea, putting the focus on VRAM now is a great strategy to diminish enthusiasm for Fury.

You are really right tbh, i read alot of tech reviews cause i love hardware, and after reading the initial review of 290X i just laughed and i remember telling my college, nice firebird man! tell me when the computer catches fire if u can hear the smoke alarm going over it. Then i got a 780TI and got the stick with witcher 3 karma...

 

[bryanW1995]

When a professional review site doesn't understand the difference between required VRAM usage vs. dynamic VRAM usage in a modern PC game, that is an eye-opener.

Excellent post, though that last part...I mean, come on. How many "professional review sites" have a clue about this? Give me computerbase.de, tpu, and BFG10k, almost everybody else is just noise with either an agenda for one camp or the other or a clueless rig-tinkerer who's only posting the review for a paycheck.

How are you going to determine how much a game actually "needs"? Serious question. Short of swapping cards with similar GPU but with less ram until you find the point performance drops, how would you differentiate what a game requires vs what it's using? Doesn't sound like an easy thing to do without intimate knowledge of the game engine and even then you're probably only looking at a rough estimate. Unless you have a practical way of making such a determination, you're not really in a good position to berate reviews documenting VRAM usage.

Huh? RS used [H]'s own reviews to show how unimportant the Ram amount was in those games. GTX 980 sli was 20% faster than Titan X on 4k Ultra settings. Go back and read his post.