Do you agree with Hardocp?

AMD's GPU program for the first time has truly reminded us of its CPU program.

  • Total voters
    372
They called it as it is. It's going on two years since their last top-end release, needs WC, doesn't OC well as is, doesn't perform as well as the equally-priced competition... this isn't what the market was waiting for. I don't care that HBM is new tech, I want results and price/performance.

That said, Fiji still isn't a lost cause. Price the cards right, get some good after-market designs out there, open up voltage control and the chip has legs. Then there's Nano which may be THE card to have for small form factor...
 
I'll say I'm biased in that I'll never buy another AMD graphics card. Had a couple bad experiences in the past and I'd much rather stay with nVidia since their cards have always just worked. There's also the fact nVidia updates their drivers for new games faster than AMD does.

However, I don't quite think their graphics division is quite where the cpu program is. Their CPUs are wholly uncompetitive for most tasks while the graphics are consistently slower, but still in the same ballpark. I think the Fury X could afford to be a bit lower, but its still in the same ball park as the 980Ti. The air cooled version should be a little cheaper still.
 
Priced at $500, it would have been a repeat of the Radeon 4870, at $650 it's a repeat of the Radeon 2900XT. The Radeon 4870 would have been a joke in 2008 if AMD asked for the same $450 that nVidia was asking for with the GTX260, instead AMD was very aggressive with the Radeon 4870 price in spite of using the latest and greatest RAM at the time, GDDR5, and went on to be a big success which carried AMD through the 5xxx to the 7xxx. How come AMD can't learn from their own successes? The 4870 and Fury-X parrallel each other almost perfectly, save for the price. New GPU core? Check! About half as much RAM as competitors cards? Check! Radically new type of RAM which helps it become much more competitive to cards with older type of RAM? Check.

AMD had a royal flush with the Fury-X at $500...and squandered a chance at marketshare and mindshare....Either AMD is suicidal, stupid, or someone should really investigate if AMD and nVidia are attempting to price fix the market again.
 
Last edited:
[H]ardOCP was spot on with their review of the R9 Fury X. Their comments may be considered harsh yet I like the style of no bullshit reviews. It puts manufacturers to the test of how they say their product will perform vs. how it actually performs. AMD fell short and [H] caught them on it when it applies to real world performance.
 
I don't agree. The Fury X is a card that for the most part was within 5-8 FPS of the 980Ti. I think that the real issue was it was $50 too much. Had they debuted the card at $600 it would have been ok to lose some FPS here and there.
 
Rauelius said:
Priced at $500, it would have been a repeat of the Radeon 4870, at $650 it's a repeat of the Radeon 2900XT.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Great card at $500 or so. At $650 it's outclassed. Don't care about potential driver updates at this point. Got to show me the money today AMD.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
However, I don't quite think their graphics division is quite where the cpu program is. Their CPUs are wholly uncompetitive for most tasks while the graphics are consistently slower, but still in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Yep. The Fury X is still in the same ballpark. The Bulldozer was NOT.

What disappointed me was how fast their marketing team grasped at straws... using the FX name for the steaming pile of crap that was the Bulldozer. The Athlon/Opteron FX series obliterated the field and Intel's Pentium 4 EE just couldn't hang. Then they had the nerve to use that nomenclature for the Bulldozer. :(
 
I have to agree.

This new architecture took longer than what I'd like to see from AMD, and despite being very late to the party, there was nothing stellar about the performance.

I would also agree that performance wise, it isn't a disaster like AMD's CPU are. However, if AMD keep going at this rate of ever longer release cycle, eventually it's going to end up like like their CPU situation in the long run, and this is something I do not wish to see happen.

So I'd say it perhaps is a reminder of the early days of their CPU downhill trajectory, and they have to do something now to ensure it doesn't continue on that same path.
 
I agree Fury X is a flop in a lot of ways, but its not like the CPU division.

Nothing will ever be as bad as bulldozer.........nothing
 
AMD really needed not to whiff this one...and they did

it is a sad day for all of us that like competitive hardware at reasonable prices
 
jojo69 said:
AMD really needed not to whiff this one...and they did

it is a sad day for all of us that like competitive hardware at reasonable prices
Click to expand...

Ironically, if the Fury-X was $500, it would have been a home-run...Greed screwed them....All they had to do was repeat the Radeon 4870($300) vs GTX280($650), instead they did a repeat of the Radeon 2900XT($400) vs GeForce 8800GTS($400).
 
The Fury X isn't a bad card in and of itself. It's a bad card for the price when the 980TI is better at the same price. Knock off $100 and it would be much more reasonable.
 
Fury X just like the FX line innovated in the wrong department for right now. FX chips needed faster IPC not more cores, investing in HBM was a mistake for the Fury and the benchmarks are proving this. When FX came out AMD assured us it was the future and just wait until software starts being programmed to take advantage of 8 cores and now the faithful AMD customers are waiting again but this time for DX12 hoping it will be the missing piece that will allow the Fury to really show its full potential and all AMD customers ever do is wait,wait and wait for the rest of the software industry to catch up to their innovations while their marketshare continues to shrink.
 
I think Brent meant that statment as a bit of hyperboly. As in, it feels like it's going that way, not that it currently is as bad as their CPU offerings.

Right now there is no reason to buy any of AMD's desktop chips, unless you use the integrated graphics and then just barely. AMD's 390 and below are fairly competitive at their price points and if the Fury X was a solid $50 or more cheaper than a Geforce 980 TI it might make some sense to someone. The fact that AMD has had to couple the GPU with much less power hungry RAM and boosted its power usage into the sun just to compete is worrying, but at least it can actually compete. The FX series is essentially the same set of chips released 3 years ago that weren't competitive when they launched.
 
I agree.

I've long been an AMD fan. I turned to the dark side on my previous build for my CPU. Just couldnt take it anymore, I wanted the performance. My most recent build, I stuck with Intel as is obvious in my sig. I doubt I'll ever have reason to look back to AMD for a processor. Intel simply won me over. Or, more accurately, AMD just could not offer me a product at any price that made it worth buying for my needs.

I havent had an Nvidia card since my GeForce 4600. I like supporting the underdog and I feel that AMD has better and more ethical business practices. I bought an X1950 pro, 2 4850s, a 5850 and now my R9 290. With this card, however, it is becoming pretty clear that the gap is widening, that AMD simply cannot keep up. It isnt a BAD card, just like AMD spent a while as processors that were almost as good and then just fell further and further behind. I DO feel like we're starting to see this from the graphics division, as well.

I had a career change last year and as such am in a much better position financially to throw money at my toys. Which means much more frequent upgrades to my rig. I love my R9 290, but I'm only playing at 1080p. If I were to increase my resolution, even as an AMD fan...I am starting to feel like I would be sacrificing too much performance to stick with AMD. The only choice would be a 980ti. So yes, I very much feel that it is becoming too much like the CPU division. Even fans that want to stick with them are eventually going to become unwilling to sacrifice the performance. I hope I'm wrong.

That said.....I still like my R9 290 a lot and feel good about running it. I do still get the sense that it'll be the last AMD card I have though.
 
I certainly have had and liked AMD's GPU's in the past.

And I wanted to really like this one too. But if I spend the same amount of money for a 980Ti that is faster than the same priced AMD card, why buy the AMD card? Exactly. There is not a single good reason.
 
If AMD really does so much better in DX12... then I will be back next year or two. Today it's team green, literally as my 980ti is ariving this afternoon. First Nvidia card sense the 8800gtx
 
jordan12 said:
I certainly have had and liked AMD's GPU's in the past.

And I wanted to really like this one too. But if I spend the same amount of money for a 980Ti that is faster than the same priced AMD card, why buy the AMD card? Exactly. There is not a single good reason.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that the Fury X is not the 980Ti killer that it was marketed to be, but no single good reason?
How about this:
It is water cooled
It has a smaller footprint
It trades blows with the 980ti at 4k with stock clocks.
It has a brand new memory technology that from all appearances kicks ass.
This card will put Nvidia on notice. From all accounts it already has because Nvidia moved the release of the 980ti up to compete with Fury X. We as consumers will benefit from this competition.
 
magic8192 said:
I certainly agree that the Fury X is not the 980Ti killer that it was marketed to be, but no single good reason?
How about this:
It is water cooled
It has a smaller footprint
It trades blows with the 980ti at 4k with stock clocks.
It has a brand new memory technology that from all appearances kicks ass.
This card will put Nvidia on notice. From all accounts it already has because Nvidia moved the release of the 980ti up to compete with Fury X. We as consumers will benefit from this competition.
Click to expand...
The water cooling is a nice feature, but I just upgraded to a 980 Ti and I can't even hear it running with the EVGA ACX cooler while keeping the GPU in the low 70s. We don't know how the AMD Fury will overclock until we get better tool support for voltage adjustments, but we already know that the 980 Ti will regularly overclock >1400Mhz, even up to 1500mhz. At the end of the day, it may have been better for them to stick with a strong reference air cooler and sell the card for less money, unless there really is no cost difference.

I think most people are more interested in the end results, not so much the why/how.
 
Rizen said:
The water cooling is a nice feature, but I just upgraded to a 980 Ti and I can't even hear it running with the EVGA ACX cooler while keeping the GPU in the low 70s. We don't know how the AMD Fury will overclock until we get better tool support for voltage adjustments, but we already know that the 980 Ti will regularly overclock >1400Mhz, even up to 1500mhz. At the end of the day, it may have been better for them to stick with a strong reference air cooler and sell the card for less money, unless there really is no cost difference.

I think most people are more interested in the end results, not so much the why/how.
Click to expand...

The jury is still out on this card and I don't mind waiting a little while to see how this all plays out. It is pretty cool that there is now high end competition in the GPU market.
 
DASHlT said:
I agree Fury X is a flop in a lot of ways, but its not like the CPU division.

Nothing will ever be as bad as bulldozer.........nothing
Click to expand...

Fury X just needs a price cut to be competitive. Bulldozer? I think most would gladly fork out another $40-60 for an i5, and rightfully so.
 
n=1 said:
Fury X just needs a price cut to be competitive. Bulldozer? I think most would gladly fork out another $40-60 for an i5, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

People voting yes must have short memory. Because the FX-81XX was a travesty and the gap between it and the 2500k/2700k was MUCH bigger than the 980Ti and the Fury X.
 
Hornet said:
I have to agree.

This new architecture took longer than what I'd like to see from AMD, and despite being very late to the party, there was nothing stellar about the performance.

I would also agree that performance wise, it isn't a disaster like AMD's CPU are. However, if AMD keep going at this rate of ever longer release cycle, eventually it's going to end up like like their CPU situation in the long run, and this is something I do not wish to see happen.

So I'd say it perhaps is a reminder of the early days of their CPU downhill trajectory, and they have to do something now to ensure it doesn't continue on that same path.
Click to expand...

This.

and This.

n=1 said:
Fury X just needs a price cut to be competitive. Bulldozer? I think most would gladly fork out another $40-60 for an i5, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...
 
i have no desire to have a closed loop water cooler on my graphics card. its just plain idiotic and a huge mistake by amd.
 
It's a $500 card. They need to drop the price to make it a significantly better buy than a GTX 980.
 
magic8192 said:
I certainly agree that the Fury X is not the 980Ti killer that it was marketed to be, but no single good reason?
How about this:
It is water cooled
It has a smaller footprint
It trades blows with the 980ti at 4k with stock clocks.
It has a brand new memory technology that from all appearances kicks ass.
This card will put Nvidia on notice. From all accounts it already has because Nvidia moved the release of the 980ti up to compete with Fury X. We as consumers will benefit from this competition.
Click to expand...

Hey AMD still has people like this guy. Can't wait for the air-cooled Fury X that will "extra" special.

ETA: Anyone with one ounce of business acumen should of seen this coming, how AMD choose to release or for better point not release information was telling, combined with the March set-back (Most likely something related to being Water-Cooled first hmmm :rolleyes:)

Competition should mean people want to buy your product, not the concept of "thank god for AMD dropping prices of the stuff i actually want"

That's a strategy destine to lose market share.... hguhh
 
Last edited:
ThisMonsterLives said:
They were a little harsh I think.
Click to expand...

More like no-bullshit. If you want sugar coated reviews you'll have to look elsewhere. These guys put a lot of work into the review and didn't pull any punches.

Sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes a company needs a wake up call before they can figure out what went wrong and begin to turn things around.
 
Yes. They hyped this crap like it was going to be a game changer, but it does nothing that really brings anything new to the table. HBM? Eh, it's cool but doesn't seem to be the most useful technology right now. I would rather have a faster GPU without HBM and save that for one that will actually make use of it.

When they said "Fastest GPU" I was hoping they meant the Fury X, but now it's obvious that they meant the dual GPU Fury that is being released later this year. Same shit they pulled with the 295x and previous cards.
 
AMD needs to get credit for advancing new standards and innovating. Sadly, they did not put out a product that performs against the competition at the price-point.

The Fury X is not what I was hoping it would be, but it is going to pave the way for the die-shrinks of next year and a lot of innovations to follow. Long-term good stuff... right now, not good enough.

I was ready to buy a Fury X, and now I am 908ti shopping.
 
AMD beat NV to HBM memory. Maybe AMD will turn around and release a 16nm card early 2016 and surprise us all having the edge on getting experience with HBM.

About the only hope at this point, or a severe price cut.
 
I wonder how it would have reviewed if it were the $500 card it should have been?
 
doz said:
AMD beat NV to HBM memory. Maybe AMD will turn around and release a 16nm card early 2016 and surprise us all having the edge on getting experience with HBM.
Click to expand...

Hynix created HBM and interposer, AMD is merely borrowing it. Just like Nvidia, who supposedly already have Pascal taped out, featuring HBM2.

Ultimately, HBM is irrelevant this generation since the GPU is still the bottleneck. Nvidia understood this. OC a TitanX's VRAM and see almost no FPS gain.

All AMD has done is added more lanes to a highway that wasn't congested, and added unnecessary bloat to their BOM. Not sure this is the experience AMD needed. 8GB GDDR5 would have been the smarter play for Fury X.
 
Well I have looked at 2 other reviews of the card beside this one and I don't understand the limited testing done by Hardopc and mainly the 4 games that Fury X was weak at but the other sites shows a lot more game testing like HardwareCanucks which showed the games Fury X was strong at and not the let down that Hard has shown it to be.

Really disappointed but not by AMD.
 
Fiji XT + 8GB DDR5 priced at $450-$500 would have been fantastic.

Instead, we get this. AMD gambled, and they lost, big time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top