Do you agree with Hardocp?

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

  • Total voters
    372
fanboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read the HardwareCanucks review and to me the results looked about the same 980Ti beat the Fury X in the majority of testing. At the end of the day they wrote the conclusions a bit differently.

I will also note that I don't think they accurately calculated the Avg FPS change I come up with 6.2% for the Titan and 2.7% for the 980ti. I could have miscalculated the average, I did it pretty quick, if someone wants to bother to check.
 
I voted yes. While my next card will be an nVidia, I can't help but feel a bit of nostalgia. The last nVidia card I owned was the GeForce 7800 GS (one of the last reasonably high performance AGP cards at the time - I didn't have enough money for a PCIE upgrade back then). I've been on ATI/AMD ever since the Radeon X1950. I've had the 4870 2 GB for 3 years during my student years, some of the best years in my life, it was maxing out 99% of the games at the resolution of my monitor, 1680x1050 (except for the odd nVidia setting or PhysX). I always chose AMD because it was unbeatable in terms of price/performance. I never liked nVidia's price gouging and dirty tactics and I was really surprised many times when my friends would choose a more expensive nVidia card that performed worse than a cheaper AMD card.

For the first time ever in many years, AMD no longer holds the price/performance crown. Not only that, but its top card performs less than the equivalent nVidia card and has less features. Unless Zen can match at least Ivy Bridge (preferably Haswell) and the Greenland GPU can at least be just like a 4870 to nVidia's overpriced Pascal, I think bankruptcy will be inevitable for AMD.

AMD - come back! We need you for the affordable and reasonably reliable hardware you were always bringing us!
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
Taken in this light, I can agree. I was REALLY hoping this card would be 20-30% faster than the 980 Ti and/or cheaper. Would have pushed pricing down on the nV side.
Click to expand...

Trust me, nothing would have made us happier to see the Fury X be all that we thought it might be. That would have been good for the hardware enthusiast, the gamer, and the GPU and desktop PC market in general.

DPI said:
Everything leading up to this launch felt like Bulldozer deja vu. The delays, the vague but overly optimistic press statements, the AMD enthusiasts swearing it was the next big thing, the cherrypicked internal benches. With the way AMD ran out of Computex and cancelling the closed door demos they'd invited some partners to, you just knew something was up. I swear Nvidia must have ears inside AMD with the way they timed 980 Ti's release, pricepoint and performance. They knew.
Click to expand...

Yep....

MangoSeed said:
It's not as bad as the CPU situation just yet. This was a marketing failure above anything else. Also Maxwell is a very impressive chip and not easy to beat. It's not like nvidia is just coasting like Intel.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Much the same that we felt about the Core i7-3960X launch. You cannot let marketing lead the charge on these launches with no basic reality inserted by engineering or management. Much better to deliver hardware that is on-message.

Trimlock said:
[H] was harsh and for good reason, they are known for it. Pull no punches, play no favorites.

With that said they never said it was a bad product, or a flop, just poorly priced and late to the market.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I voted don't know. not as bad as Faildozer:eek: and yes it does need a price drop to $549. [H] told it like it is and some people don't like it.:p
 
Cool Vibrations said:
Uhhh, no. How can they be "borrowing" it when AMD owns the patent for the stack:
Click to expand...
There are dozens, if not hundreds of patents related to 3D stacked memory dies. AMD does own some IP in it, but is hardly the only company that does. Literally every memory company has patents in it that predate those AMD patents. TSV and 3D stacking were not a new ideas created by AMD. The version that will be more widely adopted (HBM) is a JEDEC standard, with input from many companies: https://www.jedec.org/category/technology-focus-area/3d-ics-0

Credit does go to AMD and Hynix for being first to bring out a commercial stacked DRAM product. The rush to push it out just made it not as impressive as it could have been.
 
I agree with the review, but not on the part you quoted, I agree with this.

article said:
We cannot forget 1440p gaming, there are more gamers with 1440p resolution displays than there are with 4K at this time. 4K is growing of course, as cost is finally coming down, but 1080p and 1440p gaming is much more saturated and common place with gamers right now. 4K is the future, but the future isn't here yet. Keep this in mind, we didn't recommend the GeForce GTX 980 Ti in our recent evaluation for 4K gaming. The 980 Ti is not strong enough to push that many pixels with an acceptable level of image quality, and certainly the Fury X is not. Only the TITAN X comes the closest as a single-GPU video card to allowing an "OK" 4K gaming experience.
Click to expand...

By the time I'll be looking at a 4K display for gaming, this generation will have passed and we will finally have GPU cards that are able to pull 4K at high settings, and just to an "OK" level.
 
I'm disappointed like others.

It definitely feels like they're starting to lag here.

Too much rebranding on the low & midrange, not enough performance for Fury X. Frankly, it's disgusting to me to see the 290x for $320 for the past couple of months, now AMD has rebranded it to a 390X and wants to sell it for $429?!
FUCK that. I'll pay $350 for a Geforce 970 before I give AMD $429 for a product that was selling for $100 cheaper before their marketing department decided they needed to change the model number on the box to act like they've released a new product.

Lets face it, if you're going to be a "competitor", then you should be winning once in awhile. At least if you're going to be late to the party, then you'd better have the performance.

Even if Fury X was $500, it still wouldn't have gotten praise because it's simply slower & later. it'd just be cheaper.

Consistently delivering slower cards at a cheaper price point isn't really a "competitor". It's just a slow death. It's a death because AMD financials are so horrible and that's likely part of the reason why they've priced it so high.
 
Last edited:
You know I feel sorry for AMD because they are in a tough spot. On one hand you have their "fans" saying shit like, "this card should sell for $450-$550" and their rebrands should be practically given away vs NVIDIA premiums but on the other, they feign sadness at the thought of AMD going bankrupt and cry about GameWorks.

If you really want AMD to stick around, pay the premium they are asking instead of crying about the price/performance vs 980 Ti. Given the fact that AMD is cash strapped and they have a declining R&D, what choice do they have but to at least ask $650 for this thing? They might be forced to drop the price but in the long run, that will do them more harm than good.

On most boards I see a lot of AMD fans with old cards like 7970 who haven't spent a dime on AMD in years and they are part of the reason Fury X is viewed as a disaster because they also hyped it up like the next coming of Jesus and then at release declared it wasn't worth the money.
 
5150Joker said:
You know I feel sorry for AMD because they are in a tough spot. On one hand you have their "fans" saying shit like, "this card should sell for $450-$550" and their rebrands should be practically given away vs NVIDIA premiums but on the other, they feign sadness at the thought of AMD going bankrupt and cry about GameWorks.

If you really want AMD to stick around, pay the premium they are asking instead of crying about the price/performance vs 980 Ti. Given the fact that AMD is cash strapped and they have a declining R&D, what choice do they have but to at least ask $650 for this thing? They might be forced to drop the price but in the long run, that will do them more harm than good.

On most boards I see a lot of AMD fans with old cards like 7970 who haven't spent a dime on AMD in years and they are part of the reason Fury X is viewed as a disaster because they also hyped it up like the next coming of Jesus and then at release declared it wasn't worth the money.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, you buy a new AMD card right now and I'll match you.
Let's do it. Let's save AMD together.
 
Not sure because I've seen other reviews contradict what they have. To be fair they only tested at the highest playable settings. I guess its whatever games you want to use for testing. I don't trust any one site exclusively.
 
The thing [H] is right on that this is not something that should have happened the "proof of concept" could have been done on something else then the flagship.
Sadly someone at AMD jumped the gun a bit and thought this would be the "perfect" way to introduce HBM.

Most likely because on lower models it prolly would have little to no impact.
In a way AMD proved that the whole launch of these cards in the past weeks is not something they should do again any time soon.

When you can't distinguish enough for the avg youtube crowd the "rebadged" is the theme and you get the internet echo chamber. Even if AMD did something different with them it just was not "enough" to prove the point.

5150Joker said:
On most boards I see a lot of AMD fans with old cards like 7970 who haven't spent a dime on AMD in years and they are part of the reason Fury X is viewed as a disaster because they also hyped it up like the next coming of Jesus and then at release declared it wasn't worth the money.
Click to expand...

The reason why people still have old cards because they don't need new ones. You would do perfectly fine even with a 6970 in most games today. There is little to no need to keep investing into graphics cards because of DX11. Even if you get the fastest card you are still not getting anywhere near the full performance (gaming) of the graphics card. Unless you buy it for mining ...
 
DPI said:
So... "HardOCP should've picked games that Fury X was good at". That it?

That's called pulling punches. And the moment they start doing that, they lose cred. They chose a cross section of popular games, and the result was essentially the same no matter the game.
Click to expand...

If the games tested has anything to do with Gameworks then it seems cherry picked .. as we all know what Nvidia is up to in making there cards look faster but I will say that some of the review sites was running a little better test set-up .
 
fanboy said:
If the games tested has anything to do with Gameworks then it seems cherry picked .. as we all know what Nvidia is up to in making there cards look faster but I will say that some of the review sites was running a little better test set-up .
Click to expand...

The problem here is, to them it looks like you don't want to use GW games, or better put TWIMTBP games. And maybe you are but that is ridiculous. I hope what you mean is they should add a few non-TWIMTBP games like Ryse:Son of Rome and Dragon Age: Inquisition. That would make sense and be somewhat reasonable. I am not terribly fond of the path TWIMTBP games are taking but it is how it is and unfortunately as long as people buy those games it wont end. I prefer a bigger test suite but they state they are time limited and based on how they test is seems accurate so maybe at best we could request a second review with added games when time permits.

There are always solutions to issues when everyone learns to see both sides of the argument.
 
fanboy said:
If the games tested has anything to do with Gameworks then it seems cherry picked .. as we all know what Nvidia is up to in making there cards look faster but I will say that some of the review sites was running a little better test set-up .
Click to expand...

So what exactly is your suite of 6 games you think we should test with?
 
Hardocp called it like it is.

AMD hyped this up as much as possible. In the end, their hype was empty. They delayed legitimate reviews because the card wouldn't be able to handle a legitimate review.
 
I have no problems with the data, it is how they trash the card in the conclusion and throughout the review.... what a turn off.... they KNEW what the limitations of HBM were but trashed AMD anyways....

4Gb card on first drivers almost hangs with 980ti..... now that was the pretty impressive part.... not to mention temps.... ya bought into the marketing hook line and sinker instead of keeping an open mind...
 
5150Joker said:
Duh, all the games that make Fury X look better, even if nobody plays them.
Click to expand...

You're ruining the fun.

Honestly - there's not much difference between the GW games and non-GW games IMO. Fury X gets crushed OC to OC in either setting anyways. AMD might see something like a 5% hit. Look at the Witcher 3. Brent even had hairworks off for the best playable portion. That was the feature with tessellation that everyone was bitching about on the AMD side. If you look at the apples to apples it only took a 5% hit (went from -10% from the 980ti to -15% from the 980ti) when hairworks was turned on. That's nearly negligible IMO and is because of the lesser tessellation performance of the AMD cards, not purposely gimping them. Never mind tessellation can be turned down in about 2 minutes...

Is there rational behind the drivers nonsense? Isn't this just a scaled up 290x for the most part? It's not like they will tweak out extra performance from HBM, GDDR5 was enough there, HBM was completely unneeded and a waste at 4GB. And temps.... they aren't good for an AIO but everyone seems to ignore that part. Never mind the questionable VRM temps at 100C (2 of 3 sites agree).

But oh yeah - on topic. How could it not remind you of the CPU program? Blatant promises of overclockability, performance and questionable benchmarks from AMD to be let down. Not as bad of a let down but I think if they just STFU it would of helped. Maybe $599 rather than $649 and the AMD biased would of went nuts.
 
Last edited:
YeuEmMaiMai said:
I have no problems with the data, it is how they trash the card in the conclusion and throughout the review.... what a turn off.... they KNEW what the limitations of HBM were but trashed AMD anyways....

4Gb card on first drivers almost hangs with 980ti..... now that was the pretty impressive part.... not to mention temps.... ya bought into the marketing hook line and sinker instead of keeping an open mind...
Click to expand...

Let's see what you're running in your rig....oh, an AMD card. Everything makes sense now.

This fanboy crap is retarded. A real enthusiast should want the absolute best performance for the money, regardless of who made it. If AMD had released some badass new cards that kicked Nvidia's ass, I would have had AMD in my rigs instead of Nvidia. But they didn't. They failed, and failed hard. [H] simply stated the obvious.
 
officer921 said:
Let's see what you're running in your rig....oh, an AMD card. Everything makes sense now.

This fanboy crap is retarded. A real enthusiast should want the absolute best performance for the money, regardless of who made it. If AMD had released some badass new cards that kicked Nvidia's ass, I would have had AMD in my rigs instead of Nvidia. But they didn't. They failed, and failed hard. [H] simply stated the obvious.
Click to expand...

Lol really? Talk about a lame argument... did ya actually READ the review?
 
Flopping faster than an 80 year old porn actor without his viagra.
 
DASHlT said:
Doesn't work. People called me AMD bias even though I run a 970 GTX....
Click to expand...

It's because of what you post that we consider you biased. I suppose I could put an AMD product in my sig and that would change your opinion of me?
 
PRIME1 said:
It's because of what you post that we consider you biased. I suppose I could put an AMD product in my sig and that would change your opinion of me?
Click to expand...
When someone makes a post, the only thing that matters is whether they are right or wrong.
Someone can be biased for Nvidia all they want but as long as they make credible posts then they're in the clear.

Unfortunately there is so much misinformation on these forums, especially over the last few days, I find it difficult to continue participating. Maybe once the Anti-AMD flames die down, we can start having civil discussions again. This forum has just gone to shit over the last few days. Some people aren't even trying anymore. It's embarrassing, and a little insulting.
 
PRIME1 said:
It's because of what you post that we consider you biased. I suppose I could put an AMD product in my sig and that would change your opinion of me?
Click to expand...

If common sense is Bias, then call me Bias!!

I don't brand shop. I price/performance shop. Not all the time is Nvidia the best Prime1. Doesn't matter how much that focus group pays you.

This Generation Nvidia won. That is common sense. Not bias.
 
DASHlT said:
If common sense is Bias, then call me Bias!!

I don't brand shop. I price/performance shop. Not all the time is Nvidia the best Prime1. Doesn't matter how much that focus group pays you.

This Generation Nvidia won. That is common sense. Not bias.
Click to expand...

Look who you're replying too...why bother?
 
officer921 said:
Let's see what you're running in your rig....oh, an AMD card. Everything makes sense now.

This fanboy crap is retarded. A real enthusiast should want the absolute best performance for the money, regardless of who made it. If AMD had released some badass new cards that kicked Nvidia's ass, I would have had AMD in my rigs instead of Nvidia. But they didn't. They failed, and failed hard. [H] simply stated the obvious.
Click to expand...

In ANY kind of industry there are only TWO things that determine the value of a product:

The Fitness.

and

The Price.

The fitness can be broken down to performance, experience, features, quality, etc. and it varies depending not only on the industry, tier, channel but also on the user. A hot-running card may be less fit than a cool running one to some users, others couldn't care less. The price can make or break a product entirely. The difference between a terrible product and an amazing one can sometimes be the price alone: Look at the Pentium Anniversary Edition.

This AMD card is LESS FIT than the 980 Ti

For an EQUAL PRICE to the 980 Ti

self explanatory.

There are very few examples where one could extrapolate a fitness advantage over the competition. It uses more power, produces more heat, it requires more space (don't argue, its a total figure not a single dimension) and performs at or behind the 980 Ti. The only thing that has yet to be set in stone is the OC potential, where the 980 Ti is QUITE a potent OC'ing card, thus the Fury would have to have a massive OC potential to offset the lack of fitness elsewhere.

Yes, it achieves a similar speed with less ram.

But that has NO ACTUAL VALUE to us, the end users. Unless there is some strange limitation in a piece of software that simply will not work with over 4GB of VRAM, it represents NO advantage in fitness. It doesent matter if the Fury did this with NO ram, and the 980 Ti were to have 70 TB or GDDR6. in the end, the fitness shows us that the 980 Ti is the better solution dollar-for-dollar. Next to the fitness results, the specs and on-box numbers mean nothing.


This is all coming from a devout AMD fan. This saddens me, but its the truth.
 
Bowman15 said:
Look who you're replying too...why bother?
Click to expand...

I would tell you why, but I would either get a warning for trolling, or get myself into trouble.

Prime and I have got each other suspended on this forum numerous times. As long as people know how extremely bias he is, then I know I am doing my job.

And that job is weeding out stupidity.
 
DASHlT said:
Prime and I have got each other suspended on this forum numerous times.
Click to expand...

I_know_that_feel_bro.jpg
 
KazeoHin said:
This is all coming from a devout AMD fan. This saddens me, but its the truth.
Click to expand...

I throw money towards AMD products when ever I can (not just justifying something I don't need).

Right now I have high hopes for the Nano, this Fury X release actually gives me confidence we will see a badass mid range card, if not THE BEST, but it has me worried on price. I am in need of a new GPU, really wanted it to be the Fury card but that's not going to happen now.
 
Trimlock said:
I throw money towards AMD products when ever I can (not just justifying something I don't need).

Right now I have high hopes for the Nano, this Fury X release actually gives me confidence we will see a badass mid range card, if not THE BEST, but it has me worried on price. I am in need of a new GPU, really wanted it to be the Fury card but that's not going to happen now.
Click to expand...

I agree, but Mid-Range is determined by Price. Nothing else. If the Nano comes out priced to compete with the 980, it's not a Mid-Range card. The 960 is a Mid-Range card, and it is so because of its price, and nothing else. If it costed the same as a 980, it would be a High-End card. It would be a terrible High-End card, but the words 'High-End' would be use to describe it. So really, the only thing that would make or break the Nano as a Mid-Range card is the Price. It would have to be priced to compete with the 960, which the 380 already does. So I highly doubt we'll see the nano in the same price bracket. In fact, I would venture a guess that the Nano would be priced to compete with the 970 or 980, based on AMDs recent 390 launch.
 
KazeoHin said:
I agree, but Mid-Range is determined by Price. Nothing else. If the Nano comes out priced to compete with the 980, it's not a Mid-Range card. The 960 is a Mid-Range card, and it is so because of its price, and nothing else. If it costed the same as a 980, it would be a High-End card. It would be a terrible High-End card, but the words 'High-End' would be use to describe it. So really, the only thing that would make or break the Nano as a Mid-Range card is the Price. It would have to be priced to compete with the 960, which the 380 already does. So I highly doubt we'll see the nano in the same price bracket. In fact, I would venture a guess that the Nano would be priced to compete with the 970 or 980, based on AMDs recent 390 launch.
Click to expand...

Yea same here. Didn't AMD not release a 380x? Could be where the Nano is landing.
 
I've been saying the same thing for a while. It's not just fury that's the problem, you have to look at the big picture. TheIr entire lineup has been languishing for years with rebadging and being relegated to the value brand. The only new thing they have to show after years of stretching the same architecture to its limits is fury, and it's nothing to write home about. They have put zero pressure on nvidia in years, and at this point, if nvidia were to release their new architecture (which I suspect they could do at anytime if they wanted, but are under no pressure to do), it would be intel/AMD all over again. This isn't one underwhelming launch, this is years of desperately trying to keep up while the guy in front is barely breaking a sweat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top