Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that a gentle typhoon fan I'm seeing?
When Daz (Dazmode.com) put in an order for 2150rpm fans from Nidec, he requested them being painted black, which they were.
This is likely the same scenario, as another photo prior to the AMD badging on the fan was grey. It's probably a 2150 or 1850.
That's the best shot we have had yet. Looks pretty damn sweet.
Before the Fire Strike bench was taken down, it reported a graphics score of 7932, which the chart reports as 7873 for whatever reason.
But apart from that, I'm inclined to believe the numbers. So again it all boils down to price (goddamn this is like the 3rd time I've said this in the past hour lol).
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Do you want a Fury that's almost as fast as a 980TI and $600 or do you want a Fury that's 10% faster than the 980 Ti and is $899.99?
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Do you want a Fury that's almost as fast as a 980TI and $600 or do you want a Fury that's 10% faster than the 980 Ti and is $899.99?
Said it in the other thread and will repeat it here: overclocking headroom will play a huge role in the decision for most enthusiasts. If Fury X equals Titan X at stock, Titan X (and 980 to for that matter) still has a shit ton of performance in reserve on the order of 10-15%. Also, for some of us 4k users, Fury X 4gb is out of the question anyways so who takes the performance lead is a bit moot.
Said it in the other thread and will repeat it here: overclocking headroom will play a huge role in the decision for most enthusiasts. If Fury X equals Titan X at stock, Titan X (and 980 to for that matter) still has a shit ton of performance in reserve on the order of 10-15%. Also, for some of us 4k users, Fury X 4gb is out of the question anyways so who takes the performance lead is a bit moot.
Fury by far is made for Dx12 and Nvidia made cards for dx11.
its a no brainer buy Fury today.
Fury by far is made for Dx12 and Nvidia made cards for dx11.
its a no brainer buy Fury today.
based in GT-AP29 I think, so. 3000RPM.. far of being quiet..
I would probably pop on a pair of 1900rpm fdb fans in push pull tbh.
If it can overclock like a champ I might be interested. Problem is EVGA has a CLC 980TI coming out.....
.
People need to realize. A CLC cooler on a video card does fucking wonders. It was the only way I was able to get my 780 lightning to 1400+ mhz on a single H55.....that is a cheap $50 CLC system.
Anyway looking forward to this review. Would be nice to see a review between Fury WCE and EVGA's 980ti CLC card.
As for "single card that does most games at 4K60", I think we'll all have to wait for the next Fury.
so is it tomorrow they will release and have more benchmarks?
My hope is that there will be non-WC'd versions of the top dog, barring any disturbingly high power consumption and heat output issues that seem to be a back-burner topic for AMD lately (I'm seeing guesstimates all over the web ranging from 300-375W for the Fury w/CLC).
The CLC killed any of AMDs hopes of the 295x2 (500W TDP) becoming a good seller before it even hit the market. How many consumers that don't identify as DIY'ers and/or enthusiasts can even install something like that? How many DIY're and/or enthusiasts will even want to mess around with routing and mounting a dedicated CLC for each one?
By putting a mandatory CLC on it, AMD is now only catering to a very small percentage (those with the bankroll to afford them, assuming they will be priced at a pretty penny) of a very small percentage (those that are willing to install or even have the chassis space for a CLC) of a very small percentage (enthusiasts) of the overall market.
And yes, I do realize there will surely be some air-cooler models of Fury, but will they be spec'd to perform at (or very near) the levels of the flagship without drawing enough power to make former Chernobyl workers nervous plus not getting hot enough to make global warming headlines? I hope so. For the sakes of competition, consumers, and AMD...I certainly hope so.
So is this going to be another $1500 halo product? If not, then why carry over the "only meant to sell a handful" mentality of a halo product into the mainstream segments? It's completely counter-intuitive.
Intimidated by an AIO is one thing, but expecting everyone to magically have the desire to want them and/or chassis space for them is another...
Underclocking as a solution? Really? That's the best they can give us? "Here, let me actually put forth effort to intentionally cripple my expensive shit so it runs the way it should have out of the box." if it is such a viable solution, then why weren't they underclocked to exhibit the lower power draw and heat output while performing nearly the same from the factory?
Truth. I've been a believer since first slapping a $50 Antec 620 + original $7 dwood bracket onto a GTX580. It felt like I'd fallen through a trapdoor and joined some secret club. From that moment on I knew I'd never waste time with custom loops again. The performance delta between CLC and custom was just no longer worth the time for a few extra degrees, not to mention $100-$150 for a full coverage block every time a new card came out.
That cooler then moved to a 680 -> 780 -> but then the MSI 970 Gaming 4G came along and finally brought the CLC fun to an end since I could hit max OC on air without breaking a sweat.
As for "single card that does most games at 4K60", I think we'll have to wait for Pascal, assuming most games includes the latest most demanding games.