AMD Fury series coming soon.

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.
If you're talking about my post it was directly from Joe Macri a few weeks ago.
As for people guessing performance... Meh, what else can we do right now? :D
 
I'm going to be owning this card for at least 2 years. I need to know for certain if 4GB is enough for 4k to last for today's and tomorrow's games. I don't want to buy a Fury and find out I'll need to upgrade again in another year.
 
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

AMD got blasted for the poor cooling solution on the R9 290X launch. So that they chose water because cooling is important it is not all bad given that they can see how much is really needed for HBM and good performance.
 
youll believe it when the biggest known nvidia shill site says so?

ooookkkkk......

lol

I saw this comment coming. Well, you know, any site with frame times. Or at least minimums or something.... I don't see how people can say "4GB is fine!" At least mark it up as a possible risk until we see some reviews. I'll play devil's advocate, if 4GB is ok at PCPER possible AMD users would really know it's ok. :)

If you're talking about my post it was directly from Joe Macri a few weeks ago.
As for people guessing performance... Meh, what else can we do right now? :D

Well they should at least say it's a guess. I went off searching earlier today thinking it was for real! Like AMD actually released some useful information.
 
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.

I know what heat output is. What you're describing is not heat output but heat management =].
 
Hexus' article implies they already have the Fury X reviewed? Waiting for NDA to end? Possibly...

More details about the above mentioned new hardware will be coming out over the next few days and of course HEXUS will be publishing all the reviews you need – as soon as we are allowed to do so.
 
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/10#.VYC7GEaUIhQ

"At 4K though 4GB of VRAM is clearly not enough. At 4K you want at a MINIMUM 6GB. It is possible though that more may actually help as you start increasing the number of video cards in SLI. 6GB might actually not be enough for some games in 4K when SLI is involved, we will see. "

VRAM Utilization |= VRAM Requirements

Using your numbers...

1440p GTX980Ti vs GTX980
GTAV
+12.4% avg
+16.1% min

Dying Light
+29% avg
+30% min

4k GTX980Ti vs GTX980
GTAV
+20% avg
+20%min

Dying Light
+30% avg
+30% min

Not seeing a huge issue here...
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041669708&postcount=239
 
As has been said many times before, if you're not thrashing then you're not out of VRAM.
I will never care what MSI Afterburner says... Never.

I'd also wait to see them test an HBM card, specifically. When HardOCP tells me their 4K performance is suffering on Fury X due to VRAM limitations, then I will grab my pitchfork. But that will not happen. ;)
 
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.

Hell, 4GB was enough for 980 SLI right up until the point where we found out that the Fury X would come with 4GB and the 980Ti would have 6GB. Then 4GB became a problem.
 
As has been said many times before, if you're not thrashing then you're not out of VRAM.
I will never care what MSI Afterburner says... Never.

I'd also wait to see them test an HBM card, specifically. When HardOCP tells me their 4K performance is suffering on Fury X due to VRAM limitations, then I will grab my pitchfork. But that will not happen. ;)

this

if you have more memory, a good memory manager will use it, and free it up when necessary. Windows Server does this for example.

This does not imply that just because a game is using 6GB of memory that its necessary.

Releasing assets from memory requires process cycles, no need to spend them unless necessary, or there is idle process time.
 
4gb may be great for gaming, but if you do 3D modelling that extra 2gb of the 980ti will make a difference.
 
Then people really would be bitching about wasted bandwidth.
No, they got the bandwidth they needed at the minimum amount of VRAM capacity needed to meet their performance goals.

Again, you dont make sense at all. I am saying, if technology or process allowed AMD to add more memory, they would have easily added more.

Why do you think the 390X has 8GB whereas the Fury has 4GB? It has nothing to do with AMD's performance goals. But to their own admission, they couldn't do it which is absolutely fine for now.

What I don't like is how fan boys present BS facts and lie blatantly.
 
Hell, 4GB was enough for 980 SLI right up until the point where we found out that the Fury X would come with 4GB and the 980Ti would have 6GB. Then 4GB became a problem.

Not really, a lot of people criticized the 980 for only having 4GB. Many of us figured it wouldn't be enough eventually.

4GB is well matched for 980 in a single GPU configuration, but not SLI - imo.
 
Not on my budget. Plenty of people doing 3D work use gaming GPU. Go to CGSociety for example and check what people are using.

im sure there are, but they are using a product for which it is not designed.

Expect issues.
 
Again, you dont make sense at all. I am saying, if technology or process allowed AMD to add more memory, they would have easily added more.

Why do you think the 390X has 8GB whereas the Fury has 4GB? It has nothing to do with AMD's performance goals. But to their own admission, they couldn't do it which is absolutely fine for now.

What I don't like is how fan boys present BS facts and lie blatantly.

There is no technical or hardware limitation to why they couldn't put 6 or 8 HBM stacks on an interposer. That is all I am saying and that is a fact.
 
So those Fire Strike 5K/8K benches posted all over... where exactly did they get the 3DMark Score?

There is no official preset for 5K/8K, so they must have calculated it manually. And if they did, their score for the 290X is extremely off (it actually ends up at around 1600). Not to mention 4GB VRAM is enough for Fire Strike Ultra at 5K.
 
So are all the AMD fans here saying that people that buy a 4k display will be fine with fury x in crossfire in all games without hitting a vram wall? If so, quote this post so we know who you are.
 
So are all the AMD fans here saying that people that buy a 4k display will be fine with fury x in crossfire in all games without hitting a vram wall? If so, quote this post so we know who you are.

Sure, I will say that. Since you left a loophole.
Edit- Let's see how long it takes for you to find it.
 
Another Fury X graph

AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-3DMark-11.png
 
Sure, I will say that. Since you left a loophole.
Edit- Let's see how long it takes for you to find it.

The fact that you're looking for a "loophole" shows you have no confidence in your assertion or the product.
 
The fact that you're looking for a "loophole" shows you have no confidence in your assertion or the product.

Not at all. I didn't need to look for it, it found me because your "challenge" is absurd.
Or because I'm not so naive to believe that there may not be a one or two fringe cases where it might cause a problem?
 
Last edited:
Hell, 4GB was enough for 980 SLI right up until the point where we found out that the Fury X would come with 4GB and the 980Ti would have 6GB. Then 4GB became a problem.

pretty much sums it up right there..

remember way back when 7970 6GBs were out and some of the very same people where like '4GB (680) is plenty enough' or 2GB 680 vs 3GB 7970.. and on and on..
Edit:
some of just a FEW quotes:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039011490&postcount=6

6gb is useless for gaming.

The 2GB Kepler cards do just fine a 2560x1600

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038944965&postcount=3
6GB? Why? It's so retarded

3GB cards can handle eyefinity resolutions just fine.

Giving it 6GB of memory is going to be just about useless on a single monitor

there is no need for 6GB for 99% of the multi-display users
 
Last edited:
The fact that you're looking for a "loophole" shows you have no confidence in your assertion or the product.

You know he's not the one making these right? We leave that to the people with tinier hands.

But seriously... what are you getting out of asserting that dual-Fury owners will regret it... at some point...? It's their money. No one is shaming you for spending yours.
 
The preliminary benchmarks don't seem so bad IMO. Both for the 390X and Fiji cards. I think AMD probably isn't happy that it had to price the Fury X as low as it did, but whatever.

We'll see what the game benchmarks show.
 
There is no technical or hardware limitation to why they couldn't put 6 or 8 HBM stacks on an interposer. That is all I am saying and that is a fact.

Can you please support your argument that says AMD didn't have any difficulties. Then was cost the only reason to add only 4Gigs?
 
It is enough vram for most people i will say but people going multiple cards on high resolution especially games not well optimized will have issues. So yes for most people it is enough. Im planning sli or xfire on somewhat high resolution so i dont want to take the risk
 
Just remember, nothing is ever enough in technology. No matter what you buy now it won't be enough eventually. 4GB will be thought of as entry level in 2 years, and 6GB will feel tight sooner rather than later. So just get what you want now cause you are going to replace it for certain at some point. That I can guarantee so long as you continue to want to play on PC. ;)
 
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.

I just don't see how a 390X 8GB would suddenly zoom right past both Fury and 980 Ti at 8K. Yeah sure hitting the vram wall, but considering 390X is consistently 75% of 980 Ti at every resolution, and I mean 75% +/- 0.5% consistent, but becomes 3x 980 Ti's performance at 8K?

Unless 6GB vs 8GB is such a limitation that at 8K it becomes completely vram capacity driven and GPU horsepower no longer matters.
 
Can you please support your argument that says AMD didn't have any difficulties. Then was cost the only reason to add only 4Gigs?

What do you think was holding them back? Theoretically, they could have gone with a larger organic interposer that has more layers and could be made to, at least, 45mmx42mm. They could have gone with a more expensive silicon interposer with more layers and gone with a custom base die, if they really wanted to. They decided to go with the cheaper passive silicon interposer at the reticle limit with a minimal amount of layers, most are expecting 4 layers or less.

David Kanter has specifically stated that there isn't any limitation to using more than 4 stacks.

I also believe that Joe Macri hinted or alluded to the same thing, even though he didn't come right out and say it.
 
Back
Top