AMD R9 Fury Performance Review

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There is an AMD R9 Fury performance review posted at Hardware Canucks this afternoon. For comparison purposes, you can see our evaluation here.

With the Fury X launch behind us, there are still three cards left to roll out within AMD’s revitalized lineup: the Fury Nano, a dual GPU Fury and the standard Fury. Arguably the most important of these is the R9 Fury, which happens to be the subject of today’s review.
Click to expand...
 
it goes to the news posting, you have to click on the link from there.
 
Pretty much what I expected from the cut down Fury X. What is noticeably disappointing is the Sapphire OC version as it has very negligible gains over the stock Fury. What this tells me is that all NVIDIA simply has to do is create a "new" SKU based on an overclocked 980 and close that gap between it and the Fury in most games and price it at $500. Also this should give pause to those that consider Fiji:

Let’s start with the 500 pound gorilla in the room: the Fiji architecture’s abysmal performance in some key titles. The R9 Fury X could have been an outstanding GPU had it not been for sub-standard framerates in games like Battlefield 4, Grand Theft Auto V and Shadow of Mordor. Now before you go on a tangent and blame a lack of driver maturity for any missteps, consider this: the Fiji’s design is essentially an upscaled and very slightly updated version of a core that’s been around for more than two years now. If AMD still hasn’t been able to squeeze optimal performance out of such an old architecture, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed. Drivers should be a solution, not an excuse.

Like its larger sibling the Fury’s stance improves when switching over to 4K where it is within spitting distance of the 980 Ti and extends an already-impressive lead over the GTX 980. Granted, there are plenty of pre-overclocked GTX 980’s on the market that can somewhat bridge the gap but they’re typically just as expensive as a stock-clocked R9 Fury.
Click to expand...

With regards to overclocking and why even a well tuned 980 OC should easily catch it:

This card comes within only a few percentage points of its bigger brother and with a bit of overclocking (granted, there isn’t much left in the frequency tank) the situation becomes even tighter.

...

The real question is whether or not Sapphire’s R9 Fury Tri-X OC is worth a premium over the Tri-X equipped stock-clocked version. In terms of real-world framerates its paltry 4% overclock equates about 2% and at the very most 3% better performance. Considering NVIDIA’s board partners are achieving substantially higher thresholds on their OC SKUs, we have to wonder where this hesitation is coming from and just how restrictive this architecture really is to overclocking
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
Pretty much what I expected from the cut down Fury X. What is noticeably disappointing is the Sapphire OC version as it has very negligible gains over the stock Fury. What this tells me is that all NVIDIA simply has to do is create a "new" SKU based on an overclocked 980 and close that gap between it and the Fury in most games and price it at $500. Also this should give pause to those that consider Fiji:



With regards to overclocking and why even a well tuned 980 OC should easily catch it:
Click to expand...

My bet: we'll probably see an entire refresh of Maxwell. They could do this

Move the 970 down to $280, 980 $400, 980 Ti $550, 980 Ti Ultra (fully enabled GM200, same as Titan but with 6GB VRAM) $650

That would make AMD irrelevant at all price points.
 
x3sphere said:
My bet: we'll probably see an entire refresh of Maxwell. They could do this

Move the 970 down to $280, 980 $400, 980 Ti $550, 980 Ti Ultra (fully enabled GM200, same as Titan but with 6GB VRAM) $650

That would make AMD irrelevant at all price points.
Click to expand...

2016? more like 2017. Prices wont go down as if anything is obvious its that cards get more expensive and more so thanks to companies moving to a new node wont mean it get cheaper with new line ups.
Titan x is 1100 euro for crying out loud, overpriced much?

AMD irrelevant?
They currently own Nvidia in every space.
Main issue AMD have a bad marketing team and wont hire me yet as it seems.
you guys really need to however
 
Flopper said:
AMD irrelevant?
They currently own Nvidia in every space.
Main issue AMD have a bad marketing team and wont hire me yet as it seems.
you guys really need to however
Click to expand...


1418350412566.gif
 
Flopper said:
2016? more like 2017. Prices wont go down as if anything is obvious its that cards get more expensive and more so thanks to companies moving to a new node wont mean it get cheaper with new line ups.
Titan x is 1100 euro for crying out loud, overpriced much?

AMD irrelevant?
They currently own Nvidia in every space.
Main issue AMD have a bad marketing team and wont hire me yet as it seems.
you guys really need to however
Click to expand...

"They own Nvidia in every space"? Just lying outright doesn't make you good at marketing. You do actually need some substance to your claims sometimes.
 
Flopper said:
2016? more like 2017. Prices wont go down as if anything is obvious its that cards get more expensive and more so thanks to companies moving to a new node wont mean it get cheaper with new line ups.
Titan x is 1100 euro for crying out loud, overpriced much?

AMD irrelevant?
They currently own Nvidia in every space.
Main issue AMD have a bad marketing team and wont hire me yet as it seems.
you guys really need to however
Click to expand...


arggg :eek:? what would you do for a scooby snack?

Flopper you just went from AMD marketer to their management, did you get a promotion?
 
The longer I hold out the sweeter the deal is going to be coming from a 770GTX.. but I want to wait for Windows 10 before I jump .. The only thing that impressed me from there review is how fast Hawaii is becoming under the 390x name plate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top