AMD Statement On Fury X Pump Noise

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
AMD has released a statement today regarding the pump noise of the Fury X line of video cards. The full statement reads as follows:

We have received feedback that during open bench testing a small number of Fury X cards emit a sound from the high speed liquid cooling pump that, while not loud, is bothersome to some users. While the vast majority of initial Fury X owners report remarkably quiet operation, we take this feedback seriously, as AMD’s mission is to always deliver the best possible experience to our Radeon customers.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X customers demand and deserve the best, so adjustments in the sound baffling adhesive compound were applied in the assembly of the high speed cooling pump to address the specific sound a few end users experienced as problematic. This improved the acoustic profile of the pump, and repeat testing shows the specific pitch/sound in question was largely reduced through adjustments to the sound-baffling adhesive compound in the pump.

AMD will work with its graphic card partners to ensure the satisfaction of the small number of initial customers who observed this specific sound and experienced it as bothersome. AMD is confident that on-going production of Radeon R9 Fury X product reduces the specific sound in question, but this is also a highly subjective matter with wide differences in PC case builds and room acoustics.

The AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury X radiator fan is near silent, and this makes any sound from the high-speed pump more noticeable to some end users, especially during open bench testing. Thus although the overall sound levels are remarkably low for an enthusiast product, AMD has worked to reduce the specific sound that some customers report as bothersome.

Not up to speed on AMD's Fury X yet? Read our evaluation here.
 
Microsoft said "a small number" of Xbox owners were affected by Red Ring of Death before they spent a billion dollars warrantying all of them for a fundamental engineering flaw.

Not saying that's what is happening here, but generally speaking if enough people are having a problem for a company to issue a press statement, it's more than "a small number."
 
About time, Roy Taylor said a few days ago they'd already released a statement about it, far as im aware that was only the "p.s" to reviewers.
 
I'm surprised they didn't just cancel Fury to be honest. It's basically this generation's Radeon 2900XT or Geforce FX5800.
 
I'm surprised they didn't just cancel Fury to be honest. It's basically this generation's Radeon 2900XT or Geforce FX5800.
They can't "cancel" it after years of development just because the 980 Ti trumped it in the final 2 weeks. Too much money at stake.

Besides, they have low yield issues due to HBM and every Fury X that gets manufactured will be sold.
If they can sell 100% of the product then why would they cancel it?
 
I'm surprised they didn't just cancel Fury to be honest. It's basically this generation's Radeon 2900XT or Geforce FX5800.

Well FuryX is like 5-10%worse on average than the GTX 980 Ti, not like the 2900XT, which was an order of magnitude worse than the incredible 8800 GTX. Besides, for AMD, lessons learned from FuryX will be incorporated into next year's top-tier card, which will be a lot better matched to what NVIDIA will be offering then. Kyle hinted at this a month or 2 before the FuryX was released.
 
AMD's quality control is getting worse and worse.

First the issue with the FreeSync Certified monitors, and now this.

I would say "Doesn't anyone at AMD use AMD products", but after seeing that AMD uses Intel for their latest case, I know better.

:D
 
I'm surprised they didn't just cancel Fury to be honest. It's basically this generation's Radeon 2900XT or Geforce FX5800.

Considering @ 4k in CF its faster than SLI Titans (4GB limit not so limiting...) and even solo it can be faster than the 980 TI and even Titan depending on the game.

Try reading more than just [H]'s review.

Just because it wasn't faster, cooler, quieter AND cheaper doesn't mean its a flop.
 
Considering @ 4k in CF its faster than SLI Titans (4GB limit not so limiting...) and even solo it can be faster than the 980 TI and even Titan depending on the game.

Try reading more than just [H]'s review.

Just because it wasn't faster, cooler, quieter AND cheaper doesn't mean its a flop.

I read the H review.
It wasn't about Crossfired Fury X cards.
It was all about the Fury being less of a GPU than the 980 Ti GTX with rare exception.
That's pretty much the overall opinion unless you read fanboy sites or reviews of AMD hand selected benchmarks.

On another front....AMD didn't say what they were going to do for those "few" customers
who think their card is too loud??
send them a tube of super-deluxe sound dampening goop?

The technology is interesting, but not for $650.

Some turds just cant be spit-polished.
 
When will AMD release a statement about their price cuts?
Why would anyone buy an AMD product when they can buy an equivalent Nvidia card and gain at least 10-15% extra performance via OC?

AMD has no value in the current market. They're riding on 8 GB VRAM for the 390 and 390X, and an AIO watercooler on the Fury X.
 
nVidia doesn't have to cut prices, the 980ti is a better buy in pretty much every situation outside of blind brand loyalty.
 
When will AMD release a statement about their price cuts?
Why would anyone buy an AMD product when they can buy an equivalent Nvidia card and gain at least 10-15% extra performance via OC?

AMD has no value in the current market. They're riding on 8 GB VRAM for the 390 and 390X, and an AIO watercooler on the Fury X.

Right now they are selling and keeping stock levels low and sold out. So I wouldn't hold my breath for price cuts.
 
At least AMD didn't call it a "feature" and tell you they aren't going to do anything about it.
 
"We'd like to address the small number of people affected. The very tiny, miniscule, itty-bitty number of people that may have been inconvenienced by this. The eensy-weensy, teeny little number of people that may have in some way been slightly bothered by this".

They really want to stress that small number of users, it was kind of a funny read to be honest.
 
i havent bought an amd card since the 4870, and i dont see myself buying an amd card in the near future, but cmon now, some people here seem pretty eager to suck the 980ti's dick.
 
When will AMD release a statement about their price cuts?
Why would anyone buy an AMD product when they can buy an equivalent Nvidia card and gain at least 10-15% extra performance via OC?

AMD has no value in the current market. They're riding on 8 GB VRAM for the 390 and 390X, and an AIO watercooler on the Fury X.

There will not be a price cut in the short term and you can count on it. Fury X is selling out for reasons artificial or otherwise despite the competition, so why would AMD shoot themselves in the foot and charge less while the product is moving just fine?

Also people who buy nVidia will likely continue to buy nVidia and vice versa. If the price cuts on 290X is any indication, price alone is not enough to persuade those on the fence and regain market share. So AMD likely just said "fuck it" and decided to not even bother with the fencers, who likely are a minority at this point anyway.
 
Considering @ 4k in CF its faster than SLI Titans (4GB limit not so limiting...) and even solo it can be faster than the 980 TI and even Titan depending on the game.

Try reading more than just [H]'s review.

Just because it wasn't faster, cooler, quieter AND cheaper doesn't mean its a flop.

You mean like that poorly written review from an unknown site you linked at the graphics sub section? Brent has already pointed out the glaring issues with that review. Without knowing how the benchmark was done, the game settings and frame rate over time, those results are meaningless. I'd rather wait for [H] review where all the important data are presented to us, and we can actually see what kind of gaming experience we're getting with the tested hardware.
 
When will AMD release a statement about their price cuts?
Why would anyone buy an AMD product when they can buy an equivalent Nvidia card and gain at least 10-15% extra performance via OC?

AMD has no value in the current market. They're riding on 8 GB VRAM for the 390 and 390X, and an AIO watercooler on the Fury X.

Boy, you sure did a 180 didn't you? I mean I think we all get that the Fury X didn't meet your expectations, but you don't have to be, I dunno so Fur(y)ious about it :p...


cmon now, some people here seem pretty eager to suck the 980ti's dick.

That is a sad understatement..I dare say may of them would buy the 980TI, pay to suck it off, and then pay the top priced tier of all by allowing it to bust on their eager little faces...I dunno if it's me or what, but the fanboy stuff just seems to get worse and worse..Almost makes me wish Kyle would follow through on his threat to set the forum servers on fire:(...
 
Here is the thing. AMD isn't going to make or brake on the top end card. I regular fury beats the 980gtx, a whole hell off a people will be buying those. Fury nano if launched soon enough will probably be the card that will sell the most. AMD needs to get those cards out and get them out fast and build as many as they can because I am pretty sure they are architecture limited at this point and from the reviews I bet regular fury to be pretty close to fury x and overclock a lot better.
 
Well nothing can beat having a flagship product supplied by a company known for product issues and durability (Cooler Master). No amount of sound dampening will fix that. Will be interesting to see how many pump failed cases we have after 3, 6, 9, and 12 month windows. I am guessing quite a lot since Cooler Master is just an all around crappy company with crappy components that lack durability and quality.
 
Here is the thing. AMD isn't going to make or brake on the top end card. I regular fury beats the 980gtx, a whole hell off a people will be buying those. Fury nano if launched soon enough will probably be the card that will sell the most. AMD needs to get those cards out and get them out fast and build as many as they can because I am pretty sure they are architecture limited at this point and from the reviews I bet regular fury to be pretty close to fury x and overclock a lot better.


Regular Fury is going to beat the gtx 980 most likely but power consumption is going to around the same thermal envelope as the Fury X. I'm having doubts now about the nano and all of the miracle things AMD has been talking about, we saw how Fury X turned out.

No Regular Fury and Nano will have very limited overclocking abilities this was mentioned by AMD, that these cards will throttle unlike Fury X because of its water cooling system.
 
Honestly the Fury X being 10% worse than the 980ti is pretty much negligible to me.

Kudos to AMD for backing up their product unlike nVidia did with the 970.
 
Well nothing can beat having a flagship product supplied by a company known for product issues and durability (Cooler Master). No amount of sound dampening will fix that. Will be interesting to see how many pump failed cases we have after 3, 6, 9, and 12 month windows. I am guessing quite a lot since Cooler Master is just an all around crappy company with crappy components that lack durability and quality.

Coolermaster is just a sticker, the company that supplied these makes AIOs for several brands.
 
Coolermaster is just a sticker, the company that supplied these makes AIOs for several brands.
Do we know who the actual OEM is?
I don't think CM makes water coolers.

edit: I found the name Alphacool associated with some of their CLCs.
 
Well nothing can beat having a flagship product supplied by a company known for product issues and durability (Cooler Master). No amount of sound dampening will fix that. Will be interesting to see how many pump failed cases we have after 3, 6, 9, and 12 month windows. I am guessing quite a lot since Cooler Master is just an all around crappy company with crappy components that lack durability and quality.

I'm not sure what products you're using. I've had several of their cases and they're great. Built like tanks. Better than the Corsair and NZXT crap that I've had.
 
Regular Fury is going to beat the gtx 980 most likely but power consumption is going to around the same thermal envelope as the Fury X. I'm having doubts now about the nano and all of the miracle things AMD has been talking about, we saw how Fury X turned out.

No Regular Fury and Nano will have very limited overclocking abilities this was mentioned by AMD, that these cards will throttle unlike Fury X because of its water cooling system.

Dude really, how is the Fury so bad in your eyes?

It performs more or less equal with the 980 TI (even sometimes beating Titan) depending on the game, its the same price but includes a watercooler so is much cooler and quieter.

It scales very well in CF even @ 4K which shows that its not limited by the 4GB of ram and DX 12 will allow for even better multi gpu setups.

The 980 TI only came out a few weeks before it, so its not like it was super late to the party.
 
Dude really, how is the Fury so bad in your eyes?

It performs more or less equal with the 980 TI (even sometimes beating Titan) depending on the game, its the same price but includes a watercooler so is much cooler and quieter.

It scales very well in CF even @ 4K which shows that its not limited by the 4GB of ram and DX 12 will allow for even better multi gpu setups.

The 980 TI only came out a few weeks before it, so its not like it was super late to the party.


I never said it was bad, its bad at the current price yes. architecturally its not as good as Maxwell 2 when you look at efficiency,

Well if you know how SLI and crossfire work, you will know why the 4gb is no longer a limit, which I have explained at least three times. Its unfortunate people don't even know how the hardware works at a basic level before making comments they can't understand.

This card cannot compete with the 980 ti because there are metics where it looses, since performance is close the other metrics matter, and that is where Fury X fails. And this will be seen in the other versions of the Fiji cards as well, things don't magically change when the architecture, node process, etc, don't change.

Sorry didn't see the last line, its late when you look at market perception, these cards if they came out when the gtx 980 came out, it would be been great, unfortunately reality (from your other post) is it didn't
 
Last edited:
This card cannot compete with the 980 ti because there are metics where it looses, since performance is close the other metrics matter, and that is where Fury X fails

Price - Equal

Cooling - Better (20 degrees cooler @ load, 5 @ idle)

Power - Worse (20w more @ load)

Noise - Better


The trend continues under FurMark. The fan speed ramps up quite a bit further here thanks to the immense load from FurMark, but the R9 Fury X still perseveres. 46.7 dB(A) is once again better than a number of mid-range video cards, never mind the other high-end cards in this roundup. The R9 Fury X is dissipating 330W of heat and yet it’s quieter than the GTX 980 at half that heat, and around 6 dB(A) quieter than the 250W GM200 cards.

There really isn’t enough nice things I can say about the R9 Fury X’s cooler. AMD took the complaints about the R9 290 series to heart, and produced something that wasn’t just better than their previous attempt, but a complete inverse of their earlier strategy. The end result is that the R9 Fury X is well near whisper quiet under gaming, and only a bit louder under even the worst case scenario. This is a remarkable change, and one that ears everywhere will appreciate.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/25

For OCing we won't know until there are tools available.

What metrics does it fail on?

Also please explain what you mean that SLI / CF don't require more memory, as the cards have to share it (its not additive). DX 12 which will handle it better
 
Price - Equal

Cooling - Better (20 degrees cooler @ load, 5 @ idle)

Power - Worse (20w more @ load)

Noise - Better

As I said temps don't matter, silicon can go up to around 160 degrees C before phase change occurs, so even at something like 110 degrees silicon chip are just fine as long as the company made the chip so it can function properly with higher temps. Again it all comes back to power consumption which is more important for the end user.

Power is more then 20 watts, on average if you look at many reviews its ~40 watts. Reviews show any where form 20 watts all the way up to 80 watt difference.

noise is an important factor I agree, after market cooling for TI can get close to Fury X, and if the aftermarket cooler is water cooled its actually lower and if you want to talk about temperature of the chip they are lower the the Fury X.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/25

For OCing we won't know until there are tools available.

What metrics does it fail on?

Also please explain what you mean that SLI / CF don't require more memory, as the cards have to share it (its not additive). DX 12 which will handle it better
Agreed on the over clocking as I stated we won't know until voltage is unlocked, but don't be surprised if power usage goes up substantially as you increase the frequency,
Power usage goes up exponentially as you increase frequency and voltage.

You go read up on how SLI and Crossfire work when used in different settings and learn something instead of spewing out things like a marketer would. Its specific to different buffers and how settings affect them.

So you are left with price, performance, noise.

Fury X looses, on power consumptions, looses on performance in lower res, and no its not do to driver cpu over head it has to do with the amount of geometry the Fury X can push, it just can't do as much, and at lower resolutions it becomes a bottleneck.

So now you compare it

Fury X
positives noise
negatives performance not as good in lower resolutions: higher power consumption,
Equal: Price, performance is equal at higher resolutions.


It has more negatives then positives
 
Last edited:
Honestly the Fury X being 10% worse than the 980ti is pretty much negligible to me.

Kudos to AMD for backing up their product unlike nVidia did with the 970.


Yeah, they could have said it was a feature. :D


Or a characteristic of the pump itself, much like coil whine.
 
[Fury X] scales very well in CF even @ 4K which shows that its not limited by the 4GB of ram and DX 12 will allow for even better multi gpu setups.

The 980 TI only came out a few weeks before it, so its not like it was super late to the party.

ehhhh 4GB vram is definitely a limit.

4k is not a great test for vram capacity. take gta5, in the graphics settings it shows you how much vram it expects to use based on your settings, right? keeping all other settings the same, start increasing or decreasing the resolution. vram usage doesnt move by much, huh? upping the resolution doesnt stress vram capacity, it stresses other things like pixel rate.

so a fury x should be fine at 4k as long as vram usage remains under 4GB. problem is, as textures and the like get bigger (and they are), vram will become more and more important. like throwing traditional AA on top of shader-based AA? better have lots of vram. 4GB is fine for most people, but definitely not for a top-tier enthusiast card over for ~$600 or so.

you can hope and pray dx12 will do vram pooling perfectly, but nothing has shown yet that two 4GB cards in SLI/CF will have the same vram capacity/performance of a single GPU with 8GB vram.
 
Honestly the Fury X being 10% worse than the 980ti is pretty much negligible to me.

Kudos to AMD for backing up their product unlike nVidia did with the 970.

Really? The way I buy cards I always want the best value. I'd get a Fury X over a 980 TI if it was at least 20% cheaper than the 980 TI (assuming it actually does perform 10% worse) because it it's lower VRAM and more complex installation requirements (need to make room for the radiator).
 
Really? The way I buy cards I always want the best value. I'd get a Fury X over a 980 TI if it was at least 20% cheaper than the 980 TI (assuming it actually does perform 10% worse) because it it's lower VRAM and more complex installation requirements (need to make room for the radiator).

You're right. I'd never buy one.
 
Back
Top