AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4K Video Card Review @ [H]

Modred189 said:
The quality of the gameplay is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. But go back and look at the other games' performance and they tell the same story, higher performance with more options enabled.
That said, you could not be more wrong regarding the FarCry 4 game engine. Dunia has been around since Far Cry 3/2012 and has not be used outside of the Far Cry games afaik. That said, Frostbite is being used in quite a few games (thanks to EA of course).
SO let's look at that...

So, again, as I said, there's no way to say that the "fury x is equal in the gaming experience."

More eye-candy features+higher fps =/= equal gaming experience
Click to expand...

Yikes, you're right, just saw Dunia is useless as well. Pretty much H needs to pick different games, they have 1 benchmark that's worth while ;)

BF 4 it was High with Ultra Texturing and Filtering vs Ultra with High Texturing and Filtering, curious how that looks. The lack of a graph showing frame rates also sucks and that it's only siege of shanghai :mad: Guru 3d showed it doing 980Ti levels of perf in BF Hardline, which seems a bit odd since 980 Ti does do better here.
 
Just an interesting aside. Odd, I did not see anyone complaining that our gaming suite is off the mark when we gave an AMD GPU a Gold Award last week. Hmmmm. Odd this only comes up when AMD comes out on the losing end.

http://hardocp.com/article/2015/07/20/xfx_r9_380_double_dissipation_4gb_video_card_review

The XFX R9 380 DD 4GB did have the performance advantage in 4 of the 5 games we used. It was able to play with higher graphics options compared to the GeForce GTX 960 4GB. Right now 4GB GeForce GTX 960 cards are selling between $220-$240. With similar pricing we feel the XFX R9 380 Double Dissipation 4GB provided the better overall gaming experience and the better value in this evaluation. GeForce GTX 960 move aside, a new player is in town, and it is here to win.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kyle, do you have any multi-GPU comparisons planned between Fury/Fury X and the corresponding NVIDIA equivalents?
 
Rizen said:
Kyle, do you have any multi-GPU comparisons planned between Fury/Fury X and the corresponding NVIDIA equivalents?
Click to expand...


Yes, we will get to this. Currently we only have one Fury X card, I don't think we have even tried to secure a second at this time. We have learned in the past that doing these CrossFire / SLI reviews early in the life cycle of the card tend to give us "wonky" results that are often not valid for long as drivers and CrossFire / SLI profiles mature quickly. But yes, we will get to it. Given how vocal everyone was about the single-GPU 4K testing that we did....or did not do rather, we thought we wanted to spend our time fully digging into 4K and showing our real world gaming findings. As we expected, we certainly could have spent our resources on testing that was more pertinent to actually playing games rather than benchmarking those.
 
Thanks for the update. I look forward to future testing with these cards.
 
Just wondering if you plan to review any of the custom 980 tis out there as they seem to offer quite a boost in performance?
 
When are you guys doing a review of 980 ti custom cards in SLi to fury x overclocked cards in cfx. I really want to put the whole cfx scaling is better hyperbole put to the test.
 
trajan2448 said:
Just wondering if you plan to review any of the custom 980 tis out there as they seem to offer quite a boost in performance?
Click to expand...

that would be certainly unfair.. but yes, taking into consideration that custom AIB cards perform better than TitanX I want to see a review vs Fury X.
 
Araxie said:
that would be certainly unfair.. but yes, taking into consideration that custom AIB cards perform better than TitanX I want to see a review vs Fury X.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that's "unfair". There are a host of custom 980 Ti cards that are very close in price to reference 980 Tis. It was AMD's decision to only allow reference Fury X cards - understandably so - but at the end of the day if you are spending $650 on a video card and an extra $20 makes a noticeable difference why wouldn't you?
 
Rizen said:
I'm not sure how that's "unfair". There are a host of custom 980 Ti cards that are very close in price to reference 980 Tis. It was AMD's decision to only allow reference Fury X cards - understandably so - but at the end of the day if you are spending $650 on a video card and an extra $20 makes a noticeable difference why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Was a sarcasm rizen, forgot to say.. :D
 
Saw a review elsewhere of three Titan X under EK blocks and overclocked as high as they could be and still weren't scaling as well as the Fury X Tri-fire.

$3450 overclocked Nvidia setup being beat buy a $1950 AMD setup using less power...OUCH
 
psyclist said:
Saw a review elsewhere of three Titan X under EK blocks and overclocked as high as they could be and still weren't scaling as well as the Fury X Tri-fire.

$3450 overclocked Nvidia setup being beat buy a $1950 AMD setup using less power...OUCH
Click to expand...

You mean that review on Xtremerigs that ends up concluding that 2x Titans are the best bet from the testing, and that 2x Ti's are likely the better bet between those two? Oh, and that same review that praised the Fury for scaling in Crossfire, but came down on it hard for stuttering and low minimum frames compared to the Tx? That same review that said, quote, "However the end result left us simply unhappy with the AMD experience at 5K even though the numbers were really quite impressive."

That review?

Here, I will even link it instead of vaguely referencing and trying to strawman.

http://www.xtremerigs.net/2015/07/20/review-titan-x-vs-fury-x-in-a-triple-cfx-sli-showdown/16/
 
AMD should have launched this before the 980Ti was released. I get that their board partners had some 290X stock, but Nvidia managed to get in front of them and now it just looks silly. There have been other cases where ATI/AMD and Nvidia have completely blown each other out of the water, only to have the other eventually recover with an appropriate response (Radeon 9700 is a good example), but I think AMD is going to have a hard time going forward since it simply doesn't have the cash flow anymore to keep pace with Nvidia's R&D capacity. I think they have some smart designers, but they need the money to stay in this game, and products like this, while innovative, simply aren't enough to return them to profitability.
 
psyclist said:
Saw a review elsewhere of three Titan X under EK blocks and overclocked as high as they could be and still weren't scaling as well as the Fury X Tri-fire.

$3450 overclocked Nvidia setup being beat buy a $1950 AMD setup using less power...OUCH
Click to expand...

That might matter for the three people who will actually sink that kind of money into a current generation card. Myself, like most of the world, would rather save the additional cash for an upgrade later. That's hardly a victory.
 
HockeyJon said:
AMD should have launched this before the 980Ti was released. I get that their board partners had some 290X stock, but Nvidia managed to get in front of them and now it just looks silly. There have been other cases where ATI/AMD and Nvidia have completely blown each other out of the water, only to have the other eventually recover with an appropriate response (Radeon 9700 is a good example), but I think AMD is going to have a hard time going forward since it simply doesn't have the cash flow anymore to keep pace with Nvidia's R&D capacity. I think they have some smart designers, but they need the money to stay in this game, and products like this, while innovative, simply aren't enough to return them to profitability.
Click to expand...
I don't think they delayed the launch to clear the channels of 290X inventory. They could just use those same GPUs on 390X boards anyways, they are identical.

I think the Fiji yields are low and they probably had to end up raising the target clocks/voltage at last minute due to 980 Ti performance. It takes time to build up inventory for a product launch.
 
trajan2448 said:
Just wondering if you plan to review any of the custom 980 tis out there as they seem to offer quite a boost in performance?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is kind of what we do here. :)

KickAssCop said:
When are you guys doing a review of 980 ti custom cards in SLi to fury x overclocked cards in cfx. I really want to put the whole cfx scaling is better hyperbole put to the test.
Click to expand...

Dunno. I did just address that above though.
 
Called it.

In my opinion, AMD simply doesn't have the cash to compete against Intel and NVIDIA anymore. Their debt is equal to their total valuation, and their debt repayments start in earnest in 2018. AMD is basically down to one shot: Zen. If they can't make some money off it, they likely will run out of cash before they can come up with a replacement.

2018-2019 is going to be a REALLY interesting period to watch.
 
I don't get the folks who defend Brand-X like loyalty matters.

I used AMD and NV cards. Now I'm on nvidia. Why? They are faster. Nvidia ships driver updates to support SLI typically at game launch time.

AMD? You''ll get crossfire "beta" driver support for a popular game a few months after launch if you're lucky. And then only after being ridiculed by the users.

Later, you'll stab your eyes out with AMD 90s era control "catalyst" control app.

AMD has gone of the rails. They remind me of Commodore towards the end.
 
Well AMD going down is good news for all the Nvidia/Intel fanboys.. No competition...Fantastic. :rolleyes:
 
AMD shot themselves in the face with pricing. Had the Fury-X been a $550 card, it would have been a repeat of the 4870, that is, close enough to nVidia's top of the line card, at about half the price. The $300 Radeon 4870 was about 85% as fast as the $650 GTX280, just like how the R9-Fury-X is about 85% as Titan-X. The problem is that the performance of the 4870 matched the $450 GTX260, so if we take that to today, the Fury-X shouldn't have price matched the GTX980-Ti, it should have been $550.

It's understood that the Fury-X is sold out, but the poor value provided by this card is extrapolated to the entire Radeon line to the layman because of poor reviews and word of mouth. So, now the Fury looks worse than the GTX980, the 390 and 390x look worse than the GTX970, and the 380 is considered a joke compared to the GTX960. None of which is true. The Fury-X price painted the entire line in a bad light and that pricing decision destroyed the entire brand.
 
Armenius said:
Those frame times, though... Average framerate doesn't tell the whole story when the graph shows what could be interpreted as a stuttering and laggy mess.
Click to expand...

Well, the graphs aren't that much different between all three cards. They all look like the same stuttering and laggy mess.
 
gamerk2 said:
Called it.

In my opinion, AMD simply doesn't have the cash to compete against Intel and NVIDIA anymore. Their debt is equal to their total valuation, and their debt repayments start in earnest in 2018. AMD is basically down to one shot: Zen. If they can't make some money off it, they likely will run out of cash before they can come up with a replacement.

2018-2019 is going to be a REALLY interesting period to watch.
Click to expand...

I'm really looking forward to Zen, specifically because Jim Keller's at the helm, and he's done some magic in the past. Having said that, he might be handicapped by AMD's financial position as you stated. Let's hope that's not the case.
 
Rizen said:
I don't think they delayed the launch to clear the channels of 290X inventory. They could just use those same GPUs on 390X boards anyways, they are identical.

I think the Fiji yields are low and they probably had to end up raising the target clocks/voltage at last minute due to 980 Ti performance. It takes time to build up inventory for a product launch.
Click to expand...

I saw a few sources, some posted here, that were indicating that allowing board partners to liquidate older 290X stock was part of the reason for the launch delays. That may or may not be accurate. Either way, they launched it too late.
 
Rauelius said:
AMD shot themselves in the face with pricing. Had the Fury-X been a $550 card, it would have been a repeat of the 4870, that is, close enough to nVidia's top of the line card, at about half the price. The $300 Radeon 4870 was about 85% as fast as the $650 GTX280, just like how the R9-Fury-X is about 85% as Titan-X. The problem is that the performance of the 4870 matched the $450 GTX260, so if we take that to today, the Fury-X shouldn't have price matched the GTX980-Ti, it should have been $550.

It's understood that the Fury-X is sold out, but the poor value provided by this card is extrapolated to the entire Radeon line to the layman because of poor reviews and word of mouth. So, now the Fury looks worse than the GTX980, the 390 and 390x look worse than the GTX970, and the 380 is considered a joke compared to the GTX960. None of which is true. The Fury-X price painted the entire line in a bad light and that pricing decision destroyed the entire brand.
Click to expand...

Agreed here. I bought AMD last round because it was far ahead on price/performance vs the Nvidia card in the same class (GTX770 vs 280X). Nvidia turned that around with Maxwell. Makes it hard to justify an AMD purchase right now.
 
Rizen said:
What would you buy exactly then? Do you mean strictly the Fury X? The 980 Ti has been quite capable for me at 1440p, replacing my 290X CF setup at 1440p and it's nearly the same performance in a single card solution.
Click to expand...

Nothing, I wouldn't game at 4K today.
 
I don't expect to see a price drop from AMD anytime soon as the Fury X is sold out everywhere. Not sure if it is because of low initial supply or high demand, but either way good luck finding one.
 
Meeho said:
Nothing, I wouldn't game at 4K today.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there. GPUs just aren't powerful enough yet. With dual GPUs it's probably mostly playable at 60fps but then you are relying on driver support for your games to be fully playable.
 
Rizen said:
I agree with you there. GPUs just aren't powerful enough yet. With dual GPUs it's probably mostly playable at 60fps but then you are relying on driver support for your games to be fully playable.
Click to expand...

I'm having a lot more luck with SLI than I ever did with Crossfire. On big releases, I can at least count on a working and at least partially scaling SLI driver on day 1. That has made the switch worthwhile for me, and has made 4k really enjoyable.
 
I would like [H] to run the same tests under SLI and crossfire e.g.
2 x Fury X
vs
2 x 980 Ti
vs
2 x Titan X
 
Rauelius said:
AMD shot themselves in the face with pricing. Had the Fury-X been a $550 card, it would have been a repeat of the 4870, that is, close enough to nVidia's top of the line card, at about half the price. The $300 Radeon 4870 was about 85% as fast as the $650 GTX280, just like how the R9-Fury-X is about 85% as Titan-X. The problem is that the performance of the 4870 matched the $450 GTX260, so if we take that to today, the Fury-X shouldn't have price matched the GTX980-Ti, it should have been $550.

It's understood that the Fury-X is sold out, but the poor value provided by this card is extrapolated to the entire Radeon line to the layman because of poor reviews and word of mouth. So, now the Fury looks worse than the GTX980, the 390 and 390x look worse than the GTX970, and the 380 is considered a joke compared to the GTX960. None of which is true. The Fury-X price painted the entire line in a bad light and that pricing decision destroyed the entire brand.
Click to expand...

The only reason it's sold out has got to be very low supply. On Amazon, Newegg, etc there are very little product reviews from end users in comparison to the 980 Ti

My guess is when HBM yields improve there will be a price drop down to $550 for the Fury X, $450 for the Fury.
 
This clearly isn't a delayed-debut card. If it could've been on the market before the 980 ti, AMD would've saved a lot of face in releasing a card with worse performance and worse features at the same price point as an nvidia card. If it was delayed, there would be plenty of supply right now.

Then again, the Fury looks good as a 980 killer, and the Fury X does great in Crossfire. So maybe AMD actually has their market positions filled for the time being: winning at $550, and winning at $1300 (because if you're going to buy a $650 card, you clearly have a ton of money to spend, so many of those people buy 2).

The biggest disappointment to me, still, is a lack of HDMI 2.0. It really makes their 4k surge meaningless, given the best 4k monitors are 40"+ TVs right now.
 
fs123 said:
Well AMD going down is good news for all the Nvidia/Intel fanboys.. No competition...Fantastic. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone here saying it's fantastic. The results are not good for competition, but they are what they are, and we have to accept it. Rather than choosing to be in denial and instead attack [H]'s review like some have done unfortunately.
 
I hope we can drop Far Cry 4 as soon as MGS V is released - FC4 is old game on engine nothing else is using so it's importance is minimal.

Also next ones on chopping block should probably be Dying Light and BF4 as soon as we get Battlefront and working version of Batman (or new AC if it turns out to not be buggy mess like Unity was)
 
Hornet said:
I don't see anyone here saying it's fantastic. The results are not good for competition, but they are what they are, and we have to accept it. Rather than choosing to be in denial and instead attack [H]'s review like some have done unfortunately.
Click to expand...

When the top of the line video card is $1000 (give or take) competition isn't effecting the price. That's a saturation price point, that's the point where people simply won't buy it, no matter what. In mid and low end cards AMD is competition, but have you noticed that shortly before every hyped product announcement from AMD nVidia releases cards that a just slightly faster than what's coming out?

I know it's insane, but sometimes I think nVidia is holding generations of product back to just stay ahead of AMD and maximise the value of each generation of research.

I do like HBM, or at least the concept, I want some space back inside my case.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
When the top of the line video card is $1000 (give or take) competition isn't effecting the price. That's a saturation price point, that's the point where people simply won't buy it, no matter what. In mid and low end cards AMD is competition, but have you noticed that shortly before every hyped product announcement from AMD nVidia releases cards that a just slightly faster than what's coming out?

I know it's insane, but sometimes I think nVidia is holding generations of product back to just stay ahead of AMD and maximise the value of each generation of research.

I do like HBM, or at least the concept, I want some space back inside my case.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

980 TI released right before Fury X, almost on par (better when OCed) than the Titan X, yet $300 cheaper.

And AMD releases a watercooled card thats like half the size, performs almost as good (better in CF than SLI'd 980s according to every site thats tested), for the same price, and its "bad" somehow? If you don't want the price of the watercooler, buy the larger Fury Tri-X or other non-X Fury's, almost same performance but cheaper and air cooled.
 
Dainas said:
AMD really shot themselves in the foot by insisting on HBM for their top end card on such an early go. They should have reserved it for upper midrange cards like their upcoming Nano and just shoved more cores and 12gb of GDDR5 ram as Nvidia wisely chose to do.
Click to expand...


12gb ?

i think 8gb would be fine, but more important should have had better fps gains compared to the titan x. or at the very least priced accordingly to be a cheaper gpu for better value in terms of price/performance ratio. but instead they thought they could compete directly with the same price..... oo boy were they wrong :rolleyes:

the way things are developing pascal going to have double the transistor count, 16finfet+ fabrication which is a guarantee on power efficiency and performance. 8/16/32gb hbm vram is the most likely configurations. mixed precision fp16/fp24/fp64 with improved fp64 performance by 2-3 i heard. and if that wasn't enough, nvlink. ooo and lets not forget gsync, gameworks, nvidia drivers ............... the only thing people left wondering is the price....
 
DracoNB said:
Exactly.

980 TI released right before Fury X, almost on par (better when OCed) than the Titan X, yet $300 cheaper.

And AMD releases a watercooled card thats like half the size, performs almost as good (better in CF than SLI'd 980s according to every site thats tested), for the same price, and its "bad" somehow? If you don't want the price of the watercooler, buy the larger Fury Tri-X or other non-X Fury's, almost same performance but cheaper and air cooled.
Click to expand...

The FX isn't a bad card but saying it's almost as good as a card that is exactly the same price says it all. You can't be the second one at a price point and have less performance. Almost simply isn't good enough. If multi-GPU scaling is as good as canned benches are showing (I wait to wait for some real world performance results before forming an opinion on that) then it could have some real value over the 980 Ti.
 
Surprised no one has mentioned the R9 295X2. It's faster than the cards in this review can be bought for a similar price as the 980ti.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top