AMD Fury series coming soon.

DouglasteR said:
Seems the HDMI 2.0 problem is solved, at least for custom designs.

Xh46h1g.png
Click to expand...

HDMI 2.0. Check.

What else where the nVaysayers bitching about?

The next compliant will be that AMD isn't giving them away.

Wait, that already happened.
 
yep I think so, some of the logo's aren't even on straight lol, talk about a bad print job :D
 
griff30 said:
HDMI 2.0. Check.

What else where the nVaysayers bitching about?

The next compliant will be that AMD isn't giving them away.

Wait, that already happened.
Click to expand...

Looks like a photoshop to me. The HDMI 2.0 logo isn't even on straight and it isn't on the original box.
 
griff30 said:
HDMI 2.0. Check.

What else where the nVaysayers bitching about?

The next compliant will be that AMD isn't giving them away.

Wait, that already happened.
Click to expand...

Probably photoshopped, still a reference design so how could they incorporate it?
 
It's kinda funny the cards use PCIe 3.0 but AMD mobos are 2.0.

It's like how the 390x is 8GB but the Fury X is 4GB. Indirectly admitting the hardware has drawbacks.
 
Dayaks said:
It's kinda funny the cards use PCIe 3.0 but AMD mobos are 2.0.

It's like how the 390x is 8GB but the Fury X is 4GB. Indirectly admitting the hardware has drawbacks.
Click to expand...

The AMD motherboards are still using the 990 chipset, which came out before PCIe 3.0 was released. It's kind of irrelevant anyhow as the performance difference between PCIe 3.0 and 2.0 is negligible.
 
Christ, that thing is small. Which is an utterance guys don't normally want to hear. But in this case, it's a good thing.
 
plexx said:
Fury X will outperform the Titan X by around 5-10% at launch and that's without optimized drivers.
Click to expand...

Optimized drivers?

You are lucky they have drivers at this point.

I hope this is a good card for lots of reasons, but so far I am not impressed, maybe the next generation?
 
Creig said:
The AMD motherboards are still using the 990 chipset, which came out before PCIe 3.0 was released. It's kind of irrelevant anyhow as the performance difference between PCIe 3.0 and 2.0 is negligible.
Click to expand...

It's game specific. There's a thread somewhere where it made more of a difference in some games than others. Besides with only 4GB VRAM I'd want as much bandwidth to the card as possible.

This was the post I was thinking about: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041590108&postcount=9
 
Last edited:
magoo said:
Optimized drivers?

You are lucky they have drivers at this point.

I hope this is a good card for lots of reasons, but so far I am not impressed, maybe the next generation?
Click to expand...


Why aren't you impressed? There hasn't been any *concrete* details afaik, apart what AMD have leaked, and my understanding is it'll go toe to toe with a 980TI. What do you want, a happy meal and a blowjob?
 
Dayaks said:
It's kinda funny the cards use PCIe 3.0 but AMD mobos are 2.0.

It's like how the 390x is 8GB but the Fury X is 4GB. Indirectly admitting the hardware has drawbacks.
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the part where it says the Fury series uses the new HDM memory.
Maybe you want to go and read the article [H] did a couple weeks ago concerning this.

The 290X refresh cant run HDM. The Fury cards are a whole new ballgame. Speed over size.:D
 
Wally Simmonds said:
Why aren't you impressed? There hasn't been any *concrete* details afaik, apart what AMD have leaked, and my understanding is it'll go toe to toe with a 980TI. What do you want, a happy meal and a blowjob?
Click to expand...

I was expecting this new tech to be more than "just as good".

I have 980 Ti cards, so if AMD wants my money they are going to have to prove this new stuff is better.

Those other suggestions were vulgar, thanks but no thanks.......especially the Happy Meal.:eek:
 
For sale now at a singapore shop(saw at their fb page), priced at 999 singapore dollars.

Pics later i am on mobile.
 
xXxDieselxXx said:
Is that pump/WB any good? Guessing some already know the model.
Click to expand...

Waterblock is likely custom, though I guess if they had something similar that was usuable they could just make a new mounting bracket.

Pump and radiator without a fan keep the Fury X from throttling due to temperature while gaming at stock settings. That is pretty impressive.
 
I'm not thrilled seeing the dents in the copper tubing from bending them. There's really no excuse for that when you're already dealing with small diameter lines. I guess as long as it doesn't affect overall temps it shouldn't matter, but still...
 
magoo said:
You obviously missed the part where it says the Fury series uses the new HDM memory.
Maybe you want to go and read the article [H] did a couple weeks ago concerning this.

The 290X refresh cant run HDM. The Fury cards are a whole new ballgame. Speed over size.:D
Click to expand...

Oh I get that it's new tech and Gen II HBM isn't out yet. But it's self-admitting by AMD that 4GB VRAM is inadequate. The 60% in VRAM bandwidth over the 290x does nothing to compensate for VRAM capacity. Never mind IMO from my, admitting terrible calculations, VRAM bandwidth at 4GB is not a large bottleneck with GDDR5. With Gen II HBM at 8GB the increase capacity could definitely use the increased bandwidth but we're not there yet. I suppose AMD might have an edge in the next round that they can focus on the new node size only since they should understand HBM well by now.

I was just chuckling to myself about it... out loud on the forum.

I think the Fury X will definitely do fantastic at 1080p. 980ti and Fury X are damn near perfect for maxing 1080p with a single card. I'd just hold the preorders until we have a [H] review for the higher resolutions.
 
Last edited:
Creig said:
I'm not thrilled seeing the dents in the copper tubing from bending them. There's really no excuse for that when you're already dealing with small diameter lines. I guess as long as it doesn't affect overall temps it shouldn't matter, but still...
Click to expand...



looks to me like they did it for more copper surface area on the vrms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top