FuryX aging tremendously bad in 2017

Hameeeedo

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
187
Most 2017 AAA titles had the FurX dropping fast below the 980Ti, and even the GTX1060/RX580/980 level. It's due to a combination of bad Tessellation/Geometry performance, limited VRAM and bad optimizations. And that's only 2 years after it's introduction to the market. Guess Kepler wasn't alone afterall. Here are the games affected (copied from multiple sources):

______________

Ghost Recon Wildlands

980Ti is 28% faster than FuryX @1080p and @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ghost-recon-wildlands-test-gpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Tom-C...55716/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1222520/

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Ghost_Recon_Wildlands/5.html

http://pclab.pl/art73276-5.html

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._recon_wildlands_pc_dzikie_wymagania?page=0,8

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/ghost-recon-wildlands-test/strona/27689.html

______________

Ark Survival Evolved

980Ti is 20~30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, even a GTX 1060 is faster or equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ark-survival-evolved-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/ARK-S...5571/Specials/Release-Benchmark-Test-1237821/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

______________

Mass Effect Andromeda

980Ti is 23~40% faster than FuryX in Mass effect Andromeda @1080p, 17~30% @1440p! FuryX is barely faster than a 480 or 1060.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-andromeda-test-gpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mass-...55712/Specials/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-1223325/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/mass_effect_andromeda_pc_performance_review/6

http://pclab.pl/art73529-5.html

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...ffect_andromeda_pc_ludzkie_wymagania?page=0,7

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/mass-effect-andromeda-test/strona/27745.html

______________

Tekken 7

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @4K, the only resolution that matters, 980 is almost as fast as the FuryX.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/tekken-7-test-gpu-cpu

______________

Agents Of Mayhem

980Ti is 58% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/agents-of-mayhem-test-gpu-cpu

______________

Dishonored Death Of Outsider

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 24% faster @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-death-of-the-outsider-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes..._death_of_the_outsider_bywalo_gorzej?page=0,8

______________

Project Cars 2

980Ti is 43% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p!

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Proje...Specials/Benchmark-Test-Grafikkarten-1238952/

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/project_cars_2_pc_performance_review/9
http://pclab.pl/art75527-5.html

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/project-cars2-test/strona/28644.html

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09...afikkartenbenchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...jnosci_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,7

______________

F1 2017

GTX1070 is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08/f1-2017-pc-benchmark/2/#diagramm-f1-2017-1920-1080

______________

Total War Warhammer 2

980Ti is 40% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 35% faster @1440p, even a GTX 1060 is equal or faster than FuryX

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-warhammer-ii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Total...60823/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1240653/

______________

Destiny 2

980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/destiny-2-test-gpu-cpu

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10/destiny-2-benchmark/2/#diagramm-destiny-2-1920-1080

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Desti...Destiny-2-PC-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1241945/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/destiny_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/destiny_2_pc_performance_review/8

______________

Assassin's Creed Origins

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even 980 is equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-origins-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assassins-Creed-Origins-Spiel-61043/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1242105/2/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...2/#diagramm-assassins-creed-origins-1920-1080

http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_recenzje/assassins-creed-origins-wrazenia-i-testy/strona/28834.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/assassin_s_creed_origins_pc_performance_review/8
http://wccftech.com/assassins-creed-origins-graphics-card-performance/

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...n_s_creed_origins_problemy_w_egipcie?page=0,9

______________

The Evil Within 2

980Ti is 22% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-evil-within-2-test-gpu-cpu

______________

Call Of Duty WW2

980Ti is 35% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 25% faster @1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...-of-Duty-WW2-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1242690/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-11...abschnitt_frametimes_von_vega_64_und_gtx_1080

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-wwii-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_ww2_pc_graphics_analysis_benchmark_review,4.html

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/9

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz..._duty_wwii_dramat_graczy_i_zolnierzy?page=0,9

______________

Wolfenstein 2:

980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wolfe...us-im-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-Vulkan-1242138/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...nstein-2-1920-1080-anspruchsvolle-testsequenz

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-test-gpu-cpu

______________

Shadow Of War

980Ti is 20% faster @1080p, and 50% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-test-gpu-cpu

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...amm-mittelerde-schatten-des-krieges-2560-1440

https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficz...th_shadow_of_war_srodziemie_w_ogniu?page=0,10

______________

Forza 7
980Ti is 30% faster @1080p and 1440p

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/#diagramm-forza-7-3840-2160

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/76...ideokaarten-testresultaten-ultra-hd-3840x2160

______________

Player's Unkown BattleGround

GTX 1060 is 16% faster than FuryX @1080p and 10% faster @1440p!

https://www.techspot.com/review/1476-amd-radeon-vega-64/page7.html

______________

Need For Speed Payback

980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Need-...iew-Release-Test-Systemanforderungen-1243074/

______________

FortNite

980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 20% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/fortnite-test-gpu-cpu

____________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: MORE GAMES

Divinity Original Sin 2
980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p (and 17% faster @1440p), 980 is almost as fast as FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/divinity-original-sin-2-test-gpu

___________________

Obduction
980Ti is 55% faster than FuryX @1080p(and 30% faster @1440p), 780Ti is delivering the same fps as FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/obduction-test-gpu

___________________

ABZU
980Ti is 52% faster than FuryX @1080p, (and 30% faster @1440p), 980 is 17% faster than FuryX @1080p as well!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/abzu-test-gpu

___________________

War Thunder
980Ti is 15% faster than FuryX @1080p, @1440p it is 25% faster than FuryX, 980 is closely fast as it as well @1080p!
http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/war-thunder-1-59-test-gpu

___________________

The Technomancer
980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p (and 17% faster @1440p)! 980 is as equal as well @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/the-technomancer-test-gpu
___________________

Firewatch
980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, 980 is almost as fast as it as well @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/firewatch-test-gpu.html

___________________

Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen
980Ti is 24% faster than FuryX @4K and @1440p, 980 is as fast as it as well @1440p! (@1080p all cards are CPU limited).

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/rollevye/dragons-dogma-dark-arisen-test-gpu.html

___________________

Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @4k, though it drops to just 15% @1440p! (@1080p all cards are CPU limited).

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-strategii/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-test-gpu.html

___________________

Crossout
980Ti is 46% faster than FuryX @1080p, (and 32% faster @1440p), even 980 is faster @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/crossout-test-gpu

___________________

Mad Max
980Ti is 23% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 18% faster @1440p! The regular 980 is close to the FuryX.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mad-Max-Spiel-13115/Tests/Test-Benchmarks-1169934/
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/mad-max-test-gpu-2015.html
https://us.hardware.info/reviews/64...-test-results-full-hd-1920x1080-+-frame-times


___________________

Call Of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered
980Ti is a whooping 60~72% faster than FuryX @1080, even a 970 is faster than FuryX! @1440p, the advantage collapses to 25~60%, and regular 980 is equal to FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered-test-gpu
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-...59978/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1234383/

___________________

Battleborn
980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, 980 is equally as fast as the FuryX!

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battleborn-Spiel-54612/Specials/Benchmark-Review-1194406/

___________________

Homefront: The Revolution
980Ti is 34% faster than FuryX @1080p, and 23% faster @1440p

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/homefront_the_revolution_pc_performance_review/7
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Homefront-The-Revolution-Spiel-54406/Tests/Benchmarks-Test-1195960/
https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/69...testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080-+-frametimes

___________________

Assassin's Creed Syndicate
980Ti is 24% faster than FuryX @1080p! 21% faster @1440p! 980 is almost equally as fast!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-syndicate-test-gpu-2015.html

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gefor...afikkarte-265855/Tests/Test-Review-1222421/2/

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08...#diagramm-assassins-creed-syndicate-1920-1080

___________________

Conan Exile
980Ti is 45% than FuryX @1080p, 28% faster @1440p! 980 is as fast as FuryX at both resolutions!

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/conan-exiles-test-gpu

___________________

Styx Shardsw Of Darknes
980Ti is 36% faster than FuryX @1080p, 34% faster @1440p, and 22% faster @4K! Even a regular 980 is almost as fast as FuryX @4K!

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/роллевые/styx-shards-of-darkness-test-gpu

___________________

Ghost Recon Wildlands
980Ti is 28% faster than FuryX @1080p and @1440p!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/ghost-recon-wildlands-test-gpu

___________________

Forza Horizon 3
980Ti is over 50% faster than FuryX @1080p! 40% faster @1440p, even a 980 and a 1060 are faster than FuryX here!

http://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/forza-horizon-3-test-gpu
https://overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/forza_horizon_3_pc_performance_review/8
https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/70...testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080-+-frametimes
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Forza.../Specials/Benchmarks-Test-DirextX-12-1208835/

___________________

Anno2205
980Ti is more than 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p!

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-test/2/#diagramm-anno-2205-1920-1080

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Anno_2205/3.html

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Anno-2205-Spiel-55714/Specials/Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1175781/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/anno_2205_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

___________________

Ultimte Epic Battle Simulator
980Ti is more than 60% faster than FuryX @1080p and 50% faster @1440p, the regular 980 is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/ultimate-epic-battle-simulator-test-gpu

___________________

Escape from Tarkov
980Ti is more than 35% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p! The regular 980 is slightly ahead of the FuryX as well!

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/escape-from-tarkov-alpha-test-gpu

___________________

OutLast 2
980Ti is 44% faster than FuryX @1080p and 27% faster @1440p, even the 780Ti is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/outlast-2-test-gpu

___________________

Inner Chains
980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 37% faster @1440p, even the 970 is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/inner-chains-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Dying Light
980Ti is 40% faster than FuryX @1080p and 27% faster @1440p, the regular 980 is slightly ahead of the FuryX

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dying-light-the-following-test-gpu.html

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews...owing_pc_performance_review_-_amd_vs_nvidia/7

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti-revisited-36-games-including-watch-dogs-2/3/
___________________

Observer
980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p and 15% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/observer-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Law Breaker
980Ti is 25% faster than FuryX @1080p and 14% faster @1440p

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/lawbreakers-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

ArmA 3
980Ti is 29% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-3-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Sudden Strike 4
980Ti is 20% faster than FuryX @1080p

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Sudde...cials/Benchmarks-Test-Review-Preview-1232271/
___________________


Vanquish
980Ti is 84% faster than FuryX @1080p and 40% faster @1440p, even the 970 is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/vanquish-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

RiME
980Ti is 37% faster than FuryX @1080p and 25% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/rime-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Get Even
980Ti is 65% faster than FuryX @1080p and 50% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX!

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/get-even-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Aven Colony
980Ti is 56% faster than FuryX @1080p and 33% faster @1440p, even the 1060 is ahead of the FuryX @1080p!

http://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/aven-colony-test-gpu-cpu

___________________

Project Cars,
980Ti is 50% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p

http://www.babeltechreviews.com/fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti-revisited-36-games-including-watch-dogs-2/3/

The Vanishing Of Ethan Carter
980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti-revisited-36-games-including-watch-dogs-2/3/

Alien Isolation
980Ti is 26% faster than FuryX @1080p and 17% faster @1440p
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti-revisited-36-games-including-watch-dogs-2/3/
 
Last edited:
AMD Fine Wine was actually AMD Fine Vinegar when they popped the cork.

Who would have thought that optimizations necessary to hack around 4GB memory on a 1440p card would turn out to be too hard to continue indefinitely?

At least with Vega there's the right amount of ram this time.
 
Shows you how much of a mistake AMD made with going with HBM. It hurt them with Fury and now with Vega. Fury would of fair better now if they went with 8GB of GDDR5 then 4GB of HBM.
 
So you how much of a mistake AMD made with going with HBM. It hurt them with Fury and now with Vega. Fury would of fair better now if they went with 8GB of GDDR5 then 4GB of HBM.

Not even remotely possible to be within PCI-E 3.0 spec for power with Fury X using GDDR5 without sacrificing even more clocks.

I don't think anyone would like 700-800 mhz in games Fury X for same price.

512-bit GDDR5 @ 8000 MT/S isn't exactly low power.
 
Who would have thought that optimizations necessary to hack around 4GB memory on a 1440p card would turn out to be too hard to continue indefinitely?
It's not about VRAM only though, if you check the links, half these games are within the 4GB VRAM limit, it's just they use heavy polygon count/tessellation which impacts the performance of Fury GPUs
 
Shows you how much of a mistake AMD made with going with HBM. It hurt them with Fury and now with Vega. Fury would of fair better now if they went with 8GB of GDDR5 then 4GB of HBM.

The 4GB limitation is certainly a problem, but HBM as a technology isn't what hobbled the Fury cards- it's their architecture. It's also what's hobbling the Vega cards next to Nvidia's GP104 lineup (1070/1070Ti/1080), which are smaller chips with inferior compute resources that can best the full Vega64 at its very best while sucking down less juice.

HBM is actually perfect for GPUs from a technology standpoint, but the yields aren't there and the volume isn't there, so price is exorbitant and the performance of Vega (and Fury before it) can't justify it.
 
Shows you how much of a mistake AMD made with going with HBM. It hurt them with Fury and now with Vega. Fury would of fair better now if they went with 8GB of GDDR5 then 4GB of HBM.

RTG doesn't have many other choices.

The GPU is so power-hungry that it needs every bit of power saving that HBM can offer.
 
Did they test any of the games mentioned here? NOPE.
ComputerBase has an updated 2017 chart, it shows the Fury X is far below 980Ti.

Guru3d has the Fury X beating the 980 TI @ 1440P and 2560P. I see you left that out since you are only cherry picking the results where the Fury X loses.
Although it does looks like AMD may be neglecting their driver optimizations for the older cards.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/destiny-2-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,5.html
 
lets make another worthless thread about an older card. Yep we got space for that.

Its good for the forum.. more clicks more views always help kyle to pay the bills.. c'mon let's the thread reach 3000 post of war post then we can start copy paste(quoting) from other threads what's already has been discussed and maybe, just maybe someone may learn anything new xD.

and yes, im drunk a Monday at 6am. lol.
 
So you compiled a list of games that do terrible on ALL AMD cards. Great work, OP! Not sure where the Fury X comes into place where the RX 580 and Rx 390 do just as bad or worse in all of these. Wolfenstein might be only exception whereas the 4 GB vRAM finally hinders this card.
 
Looks like that GTX 1070 is aging bad as well:
56.PNG
 
The 4GB limitation is certainly a problem, but HBM as a technology isn't what hobbled the Fury cards- it's their architecture. It's also what's hobbling the Vega cards next to Nvidia's GP104 lineup (1070/1070Ti/1080), which are smaller chips with inferior compute resources that can best the full Vega64 at its very best while sucking down less juice.

HBM is actually perfect for GPUs from a technology standpoint, but the yields aren't there and the volume isn't there, so price is exorbitant and the performance of Vega (and Fury before it) can't justify it.

AMD fails at DFM (design for manufacture) repetivitively. You know.. the most important part of designing a product. It feels like the struggle to design a product at all though (on the GPU side.)

With a limited budget I guess you can't do everything...
 
Two years later, it is astonishing that so many 'experts' claim that the 4gb vRam was a problem.

it's a problem, and it's a terrible one, AMD had 2 engineers specifically dedicated to vRAM optimizations in certain games, most popular ones, however in certain games the issues are still obvious (from it's time) making a 390X with 8GB perform much better than Fury and FuryX, nowadays they now have Vega with 8GB and they don't need to optimize anymore, and then you have cases as the new wolfenstein with a RX 480 crushing Fury X because the optimizations have stopped, you have no idea how terrible it's the FuryX on games with UHD texture packs and/or MODS, or games where TRULY was necessary 4GB+ (as it was Dying light or Shadow of mordor, GTA V from it's time or Rise of the Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 7, Mass Effect Andromeda from more recent times).

GTX 1070 it's Aging as it should.. recent [H] review proven the Vega56 to be ~35% faster than Fury due clocks. which point exactly above GTX 1070. GTX 1070 it's aging fine, and that's the reason why the GTX 1070Ti was launched.
 
Last edited:
I HATE bad negative reports from any video card maker always think GREAT wonderful Positive thoughts i guess i could bring up how shitty nvidia was when hl2 came out and didnt support dx9 like ati did back then but i wont go there oh wait......i just did
 
it's a problem, and it's a terrible one, AMD had 2 engineers specifically dedicated to vRAM optimizations in certain games, most popular ones, however in certain games the issues are still obvious (from it's time) making a 390X with 8GB perform much better than Fury and FuryX, nowadays they now have Vega with 8GB and they don't need to optimize anymore, and then you have cases as the new wolfenstein with a RX 480 crushing Fury X because the optimizations have stopped ...

A TERRIBLE PROBLEM you say.

I had this same discussion here: https://hardforum.com/threads/wolfenstein-ii-shows-8gb-vram-is-a-must.1947517/

After being released 2.5 years ago, nobody seemed to be able to show me a benchmark (other than Wolf 2) where 4 gb was showing to be a problem, much less getting crushed by the rx 480
 
Ark Survival Evolved

Gameworks game.
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/a...scusses-nvidia-gameworks-future-game-features
______________

Mass Effect Andromeda

Gameworks Game
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/04/04/mass_effect_andromeda_video_card_performance_preview/

______________

Tekken 7

Random Russian site using ancient AMD drivers again (17.5.2 came out in May.), and the only benchmarks available.

______________

Agents Of Mayhem

Gameworks Game.
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/agents-of-mayhem-release

______________

Dishonored Death Of Outsider

No idea, weird engine. Who the hell knows.

______________

Project Cars 2

gameworks game
And if you expected of all games Project Cars to perform on AMD hardware you've been under a rock for 2 years.
http://www.pcgamer.com/project-cars...entionally-crippled-performance-on-amd-cards/

______________

F1 2017

Gameworks game.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/nvidia-gameworks-strikes-again-f1-2017-benchs.808488/

______________

Total War Warhammer 2

Who knows, any googling I did showed the game running like crap on every system.



______________

Destiny 2

Gameworks game, with nvidia bundles
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/destiny-2-pc-beta-keys-hdr-sli-geforce-gtx-bundle



______________

Assassin's Creed Origins

at 1080 the GTX1060 was beating Vega 64.. much optimization.. very wow.
https://wccftech.com/assassins-creed-origins-graphics-card-performance/
______________

The Evil Within 2

I can find no other benchmarks for this game than your obscure site.
______________

Call Of Duty WW2

And once you use the proper drivers (albeit the beta version, not the release thats out now) the fury is slower than 980ti by 4 FPS..... 4.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Call_Of_Duty_WW_II/4.html

______________

Wolfenstein 2:

Can't argue here, all 4GB cards are getting slaughtered by Wolfenstein 2, perhaps some texture optimization can be patched in, perhaps not, but it isn't exclusive to the Fury.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...-pc-graphics-analysis-benchmark-review,5.html

______________

Shadow Of War

gameworks game.
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-adds-ansel-hdr-sli

______________

Forza 7
980Ti is 30% faster @1080p and 1440p

Except it isn't.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/forza-7-pc-graphics-performance-benchmarks.html
______________

Player's Unkown BattleGround

Runs like shit on everything, early access, and ... gameworks.
https://www.vg247.com/2017/08/21/pl...vidia-hbao-and-shadowplay-highlights-support/

______________

Need For Speed Payback

I can find nowhere else on the internet that has benchmarked this game.
______________

FortNite

Your own link is using outdated drivers, and before the nov. 1st performance patch Epic stated they were working on.

http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/fortnite-test-gpu-cpu



Seriously, how much is Nvidia paying some of you? I could use a new day job.


Edit: I missed Tekken
 
Last edited:
So where is the chart that shows it choking 4gb more then anything else on all of those tests ?
 
F1 2017 is not a GameWorks title, links to a forum question is now considered a source?

You are linking the old article, before NVIDIA released their new Forza 7 drivers, here is the new one where GTX 1060 is faster than FuryX.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/

The rest of yout post isn't even worth responding to, many of these games are not GameWorks titles, and those who are, are popular AAA titles that should work well on any GPU. That's how GPUs age badly, they fall behind in AAA titles, Kepler suffered the same fate and the pattern is clear here with Fiji.
 
The writing was on the wall even two years ago that 4GB of RAM wasn't nearly enough for the future. I expect we will see 8 GB being the bare minimum moving forward in late 2018. Add a few mods to AAA titles, and you can sink a lot of cards that don't have 8 GB's even now in late 2017.
 
F1 2017 is not a GameWorks title, links to a forum question is now considered a source?

Is this a better link for you on F1 2017?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/f1_2017_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html

Also in the article from a reputable site "Nvidia reverts to HBAO+" how do you get HBAO+ into your game? Hmmmm..... Oh yeah, it's a Gameworks feature.

dunno how 77 vs. 71 FPS = 30%.

many of these games are not GameWorks titles, and those who are, are popular AAA titles that should work well on any GPU.

Yes... they are. And the majority of Gameworks titles run shit tier on all hardware (red or green) and it's been proven over and over and over that AMD hardware runs like shit on Gameworks implimented games.
 
Is this a better link for you on F1 2017?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/f1_2017_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html


Yes... they are. And the majority of Gameworks titles run shit tier on all hardware (red or green) and it's been proven over and over and over that AMD hardware runs like shit on Gameworks implimented games.


Only if gameworks libraries that are used are on and use tessellation. That is a weakness of AMD cards, can't get around that, nV took advantage of that. Just like how AMD took early advantage of async compute.

Also about HBAO+

I suggest reading this.

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/hbao-compatibility-flags-thread.387114/

It by itself shouldn't hurt performance of AMD cards, it actually is just a tad bit slower than HBAO even on nV cards, the % hit should be in 2-5% range over HBAO with better image quality.

Now the draw back of HBAO+ is memory usage. It uses more memory than traditional HBAO, now it shouldn't be so much that it would hurt a 4gb card though.... So that performance difference is quite interesting, but then again we don't know what is going on unless we isolate HBAO then run the tests.
 
Last edited:
My link is also from ComputerBase which is also a reputable source, if you have problems with it, start by pointing out why their testing is invalid.

In fact reading their article will show you their testing is more valid because they used max settings: Ultra + SSRT shadows, while Guru3d only tested Ultra settings.

Yep, how 'terribly' that FuryX has aged. Maxwell will go the way of Fermi and Kepler.
You mean like FuryX is aging badly now?
What are you posting are just old links with old games, they have none of the games of 2017.

Here is a more recent chart with new titles + old ones:
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/grafikkarte/rangliste/?amp=1

Fermi aging bad? Nope Latest comparison shows the 480 destroying 5870 in new titles, same for 580 vs 6970.
 
Last edited:
My link is also from ComputerBase which is also a reputable source, if you have problems with it, start by pointing out why their testing is invalid.

In fact reading their article will show you their testing is more valid because they used max settings: Ultra + SSRT shadows, while Guru3d only tested Ultra settings.


You mean like FuryX is aging badly now?
What are you posting are just old links with old games, they have none of the games of 2017.

Here is a more recent chart with new titles + old ones:
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/grafikkarte/rangliste/?amp=1

Fermi aging bad? Nope Latest comparison shows the 480 destroying 5870 in new titles, same for 580 vs 6970.


Where, where are these :) I'd like to see who the hell wastes time on testing 2 obsolete cards.
 
All 4Gb cards are not the same when you think of a monster like Hawaii with 512Mb memory buffer and the main reason it keeps getting faster because we now have DDR 4 memory for faster cpu's and I would think a card like Hawaii would keep getting faster once chipset's are on a even par with DDR5 .. heck even the 7950 with it 384 Bit memory buffer can still play 1080p titles .
 
OP has derailed his own thread in desperation. Uses random youtube videos to try and prove a point.
1st video compares 2 GPUs in modern games that would probably loose to an APU or iGPU
2nd video compares a $380 Hd 5870 to a $500 fire-breathing GTX 480. Not a very commanding lead save GTA V:
old.PNG


Basis of this entire thread:
1.) Cherry pick a few games to show aging results
2.) Of those cherry picked games, cherry pick various reviews to try and prove a point
3.) Have others chearlead your "findings"
4.) Win
 
Back
Top