AMD Fury series coming soon.

TaintedSquirrel said:
I'm guessing it's using a full cover plate attached to the copper pipe, which itself goes directly over the VRM's.
Goddamn AMD. 10/10 I didn't even think that was possible.

...Or no plate, GDDR5 doesn't exist anymore. O_O
Click to expand...

No It is probably not a full cover block .. probably exactly as your pic shows, a gpu only block with that copper pipe to cool the VRM's. That's it. I mean that's all there is ... the GPU block gets the memory so there is nothing else needed.

Hah, you changed it as I made my reply
 
picket23 said:
No, not bingo. If the card runs out of RAM then the speed of said RAM doesn't matter as that's not where the data is being retrieved from. However, it is true that we can't judge this until cards are in independent hands and have gone through proper testing.

Who know's. AMD might have some solid solutions and even if they don't 4gb might not be as limiting as some think it is. Presumably they aren't going to flaunt a cards virtues at 4k and then deliver something that is unusable at high settings in demanding games.
Anyway time will tell, Our good friends at HardOCP will do all the relevant testing to ensure we are informed just as soon as they can.

also:
Click to expand...

Yup, reviews will show how memory will be managed. And TBH, going forward I'm not worried about Mantle/Volkan/DX12 games, but I wouldn't be surprised some DX11 and under games have some issues with resource management squandering. We will see how AMD's engineering team addressed that potential occurrence.
 
DejaWiz said:
And why do you think I'm bitching about AMD? Because NVidia needs to be put back in check so they can quit pulling that type of bullshit. Right now, both companies are fucking us customers.

And that is exactly why I've never had the desire to spend more than $500 on a single GPU (which is still quite a hefty price, imo). I'm likely not moving to Maxwell because of the VRAM shenanigans, plus it's not worth transitioning to another 28nm part. 290X is priced at a real sweet spot right now, but I'm not going to downgrade in regards to power consumption and heat output, even compared to my hot running 780s. Fiji XT/Fury X is out because of that ridiculous water cooling requirement. There is no way I can keep my current uATX build and use a pair of those GPUs along with a 280mm AIO for my CPU and my current PSU...

So I'll say it again: I hope AMD releases a Fury with a HSF and is cool running that comes close to or performs the same as this stupid-ass CLC model.
Click to expand...

Dude, Yes, the Ref Fury X is CLC water cooled, but there will be tons of partner boards with all sorts of cooling configs, including air coolers. Geez...
 
Osjur said:
Official specs:
LAq0L9z.png
Click to expand...
Looks like the high speed gentle typhoon. Good that it's a very high quality fan, but bad that it can get so loud that it will make the 290X reference sound quiet. I hope just it never has to get close to the max speed.
 
5150Joker said:
Surprise surprise, just like I said, they didn't reveal anything about Fury X that we didn't already know. AMD is so predictable.
Click to expand...

Surprise surprise. 5150Joker is in an AMD thread downplaying everything he can. Joker5150 is so predictable.

We didn't actually "know" all the information that was presented. We had a pretty good idea, but we didn't have actual confirmation. And we did pick up a few new points of interest to discuss. What did you expect them to reveal? The actual location of Atlantis? Shambhala, perhaps?

Sheesh...
 
Boggins said:
Not that anyone would know how these cards will perform in Crossfire, but generally speaking, how is AMD's Crossfire scaling these days?
Click to expand...

The better question would be: How is AMD support for Crossfire these days?
 
DejaWiz said:
That remains to be seen. July 14th will be the day that I decide to move off my 780s back to Radeon products or I continue to wait.

I will wait if vanilla Fury isn't better than the 980 in my three key requirements: 1.) performance, 2.) lower power draw, and 3.) lower heat output. If it is to be priced at $550, then the extra $50 over current 980 pricing better translate to wins in all three metrics.
Click to expand...

that's really two requirements,

lower power draw = lower heat output
 
D4rkn3ss said:
that would fit inside an SG05, dual GPU shoebox sized itx gaming toy? holy fuck dude.
Click to expand...
I know... I was amazed when I realized that dual-GPU card appears no larger than a typical single GPU card that we'd buy today. You could make a seriously impressive ITX gaming machine with one of those assuming you could shoehorn in a power supply large enough to feed everything.
 
Last edited:
Brent_Justice said:
want, more, rops, personally
Click to expand...

Nah, I think nv going 96 rops is overkill right now. I mean it wasn't long ago that 32 ROP's was top tier. Going to 64 ROP's was what made the 290X so great at high res. I think 64 is plenty for the amount of shader core power that these GPU's have. Although, I was wondering if amd went higher than 64 or not, but now we know.
 
I'm hoping with these smaller cards waterblocks also come down in price.
 
drklu said:
I'm hoping with these smaller cards waterblocks also come down in price.
Click to expand...

Well, with the ram on the gpu package now a full cover block is a lot less important. Just a gpu block, plus some good cooling on the VRM's is all you need, especially if you are trying to save money.
 
extide said:
Well, with the ram on the gpu package now a full cover block is a lot less important. Just a gpu block, plus some good cooling on the VRM's is all you need, especially if you are trying to save money.
Click to expand...
More of a full cover guy myself, I like the look of it much better. Good points though
 
extide said:
I saw those posts, but I wasnt sure if you strictly wanted the top end perf or not.
Click to expand...

Want? Yes, I'd love to be able to get that. But not with more power draw and not at $650+ each along with mandatory water cooling. If there is to be air-cooled variants of Fury, then the heat output is probably going to be another issue for me to steer clear. :/

For me to move off my 780s, the performance, power draw, and heat output will have to be better than 980 level, if not 980ti level (and at an affordable to me price; <= $350 each). Oh, and full speed for the whole frame buffer... -_- @ 970.

This is where I feel Fiji Nano has some serious potential, and I eagerly await its reviews.

Digital Viper-X- said:
that's really two requirements,

lower power draw = lower heat output
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The Mini 900 series cards will usually run quite a bit hotter and reach the point of thermal throttling vs their grown-up brethren in certain situations, despite having the exact same power consumption.
 
DejaWiz said:
Want? Yes, I'd love to be able to get that. But not with more power draw and not at $650+ each along with mandatory water cooling. If there is to be air-cooled variants of Fury, then the heat output is probably going to be another issue for me to steer clear. :/

For me to move off my 780s, the performance, power draw, and heat output will have to be better than 980 level, if not 980ti level (and at an affordable to me price; <= $350 each). Oh, and full speed for the whole frame buffer... -_- @ 970.

This is where I feel Fiji Nano has some serious potential, and I eagerly await its reviews.



Not necessarily. The Mini 900 series cards will usually run quite a bit hotter and reach the point of thermal throttling vs their grown-up brethren in certain situations, despite having the exact same power consumption.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they put out more heat, it just means the heatsink is not able to dissipate the heat they're putting out fast enough.
 
DedEmbryonicCe11 said:
Does anyone have a problem with AMD using Intel's ethernet solutions?
Click to expand...
No problem at all. But look again. That's an LGA cpu there and as far as I'm aware AMD has never made an LGA cpu (outside of servers anyway). It's only a prototype, but I'm pretty sure we just saw an intel cpu.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
That doesn't mean they put out more heat, it just means the heatsink is not able to dissipate the heat they're putting out fast enough.
Click to expand...

You know exactly what is meant when the term "lower heat output" is used in regards to a GPU: lower idle and load temps. Quit trying to elite soapbox it.
 
Darakian said:
No problem at all. But look again. That's an LGA cpu there and as far as I'm aware AMD has never made an LGA cpu (outside of servers anyway). It's only a prototype, but I'm pretty sure we just saw an intel cpu.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is an early Zen/K12 ES.
 
Anyone seen this yet? Better hope it's Fury's drivers that are the problem and not the 4 GB VRAM limitation:

f3b3f8f6_226D614A558049E817E36A.png


The most interesting part out of the AMD lineup is the Fury (non X) as it seems pretty close to 980 Ti performance.
 
lol most of us don't have 8k displays anyway....on top of the fact none of the cards would handle it for games either
 
primetime said:
lol most of us don't have 8k displays anyway....on top of the fact none of the cards would handle it for games either
Click to expand...
True but it's indicative of a problem as game devs make Ultra Textures require more than 4GB of ram. Then the Flagship Fury card user is SOL and has to turn down stuff even if the processing power could actually do it.
 
4gb is enough for 4k. 4gb is going to hurt performance at 5k and beyond. Still a great card, and it's a powerhouse. We have yet to see actual reviews and overclocking, but looks like the Fury X bests anything Nvidia have for 4k and lower resolutions.

The real question is Fury Nano. I would guess this is the actual 980 competitor. Faster than the 290x/390x, and the 980. Much improved power consumption. This might be the card we saw on previous performance leaks named the Captain Jack or 380x/390x.

Cannot wait for actual reviews of all 4 Fury cards.

011503yjegz86eyes86w8e_w_600.jpg


011518p1h2dduhz6xuo9j9_w_600.png
 
DejaWiz said:
Want? Yes, I'd love to be able to get that. But not with more power draw and not at $650+ each along with mandatory water cooling. If there is to be air-cooled variants of Fury, then the heat output is probably going to be another issue for me to steer clear. :/

For me to move off my 780s, the performance, power draw, and heat output will have to be better than 980 level, if not 980ti level (and at an affordable to me price; <= $350 each). Oh, and full speed for the whole frame buffer... -_- @ 970.

This is where I feel Fiji Nano has some serious potential, and I eagerly await its reviews.



Not necessarily. The Mini 900 series cards will usually run quite a bit hotter and reach the point of thermal throttling vs their grown-up brethren in certain situations, despite having the exact same power consumption.
Click to expand...


But thats what I am saying is its NOT mandatory water cooling. There will be Fury X's with air cooling.


And yes, lower power draw DOES = lower heat output but neither of those have much to do with actual temperature.

temperature is based on heat output - heat removal capacity
 
5150Joker said:
Anyone seen this yet? Better hope it's Fury's drivers that are the problem and not the 4 GB VRAM limitation:
Click to expand...

It was enough for the 980/970. So I see no issues with it.

The only people saying it wont be enough are the people with an Agenda.
 
DASHlT said:
It was enough for the 980/970. So I see no issues with it.

The only people saying it wont be enough are the people with an Agenda.
Click to expand...

4GB not enough for all games at 4k. It's fine for anything below that though.
 
I'll leave this here (again)

“If you actually look at frame buffers and how efficient they are and how efficient the drivers are at managing capacities across the resolutions, you’ll find that there’s a lot that can be done. We do not see 4GB as a limitation that would cause performance bottlenecks. We just need to do a better job managing the capacities. We were getting free capacity, because with [GDDR5] in order to get more bandwidth we needed to make the memory system wider, so the capacities were increasing. As engineers, we always focus on where the bottleneck is. If you’re getting capacity, you don’t put as much effort into better utilising that capacity. 4GB is more than sufficient. We’ve had to go do a little bit of investment in order to better utilise the frame buffer, but we’re not really seeing a frame buffer capacity [problem]. You’ll be blown away by how much [capacity] is wasted.”
Click to expand...

When I asked Macri about this issue, he expressed confidence in AMD's ability to work around this capacity constraint. In fact, he said that current GPUs aren't terribly efficient with their memory capacity simply because GDDR5's architecture required ever-larger memory capacities in order to extract more bandwidth. As a result, AMD "never bothered to put a single engineer on using frame buffer memory better," because memory capacities kept growing. Essentially, that capacity was free, while engineers were not. Macri classified the utilization of memory capacity in current Radeon operation as "exceedingly poor" and said the "amount of data that gets touched sitting in there is embarrassing."

With HBM, he said, "we threw a couple of engineers at that problem," which will be addressed solely via the operating system and Radeon driver software. "We're not asking anybody to change their games."
Click to expand...
 
Hmm. I run @ 4k/60Hz HDMI 2.0. Still torn. Is the Fury HDMI 2.0? Need more info. I'd gladly get 2 plain Fury's if I knew 4GB was enough.
 
Fury X ($650) 3-5% faster than Titan X ($1000) <= bet Titan X owners are kicking themselves LOL
Fury ($550) same as 980 Ti ($650)
Fury ($550) 30% faster than 980 ($500).


Nvidia is forced to lower prices!
 
I'll believe 4GB is enough when pcper does frame times with crossfire Fury X's. I'm highly skeptical. It might be ok as a single card if you watch what kind of AA you do, in my opinion.

I swear the amount of illogical nonsense in AMD threads and posting random shit with no sources kills me. People MUST be trolling.
 
Dayaks said:
I swear the amount of illogical nonsense in AMD threads and posting random shit with no sources kills me. People MUST be trolling.
Click to expand...

All the hot air is just the necessary gas filling the vacuum of any real substance.
 
youll believe it when the biggest known nvidia shill site says so?

ooookkkkk......

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top