AMD Fury series coming soon.

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...

Yeah, the dent in the upper right I am not sure of. The dent along the VRMs they did that to flatten the pipe to make better contact.

My 12"x7" copper pipe (0.25"ID)/aluminum plates are the same way. The copper pipe is pressed into the plate and is flattened like that. Even with that and 0.25" ID it has no problem dissipating 2kW. Fury X should be fine. :D
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
And where does it throttle? 95C? :p
Click to expand...

Not sure, I've heard multiple numbers.
I'll guess 80C or 85C.

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 alreay 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...
Doesn't matter in the least bit.
Testing with custom loops back in the day, there were numerous tubing size tests done which showed as long as you had good flow and sufficient radiators, the effect on temps is negligible. I would imagine it would be even less so in this case, since it is 1 block and <3ft of tubing.
 
Just noticed all the probe/sensor spots on the PCB.
This card is just begging for the hard mods.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
This hotdog has HDMI 2.0, but AMD doesn't? Checkmate, fanboys.

xRwSGl2.png
Click to expand...

Not only does it have HDMI 2.0........if it breaks you can eat it.
 
Dayaks said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will be interested to see how you chuckle tomorrow when the reviews come out. When all the leaks so far seem to be showing that it handles 4K pretty well. From Gibbo in OCuk and Hardware zone leaks above.
 
reaper12 said:
I will be interested to see how you chuckle tomorrow when the reviews come out. When all the leaks so far seem to be showing that it handles 4K pretty well. From Gibbo in OCuk and Hardware zone leaks above.
Click to expand...

its a 4k card for sure.:D
 
The next movement from "We don't preorder games" will be the "We don't buy 4K HDTVs until they have DP."
 
reaper12 said:
I will be interested to see how you chuckle tomorrow when the reviews come out. When all the leaks so far seem to be showing that it handles 4K pretty well. From Gibbo in OCuk and Hardware zone leaks above.
Click to expand...

I actually wish it was faster than nVidia. Then single card could drive my 3440x1440. I'd be pumped.

I was really hoping for a curve ball like nVidia's performance increase per core with Maxwell. I.E. Fury X having 42% more cores than the 290x and 30% faster per core = 84% speed increase. Doesn't look like that happened though.

I was chuckling at AMD's contradictory specs and talk. Not so much the performance of the card. I think it'll have it's niche (a quite large one at that).
 
Dayaks said:
I actually wish it was faster than nVidia. Then single card could drive my 3440x1440. I'd be pumped.

I was really hoping for a curve ball like nVidia's performance increase per core with Maxwell. I.E. Fury X having 42% more cores than the 290x and 30% faster per core = 84% speed increase. Doesn't look like that happened though.
Click to expand...
Maxwell is a whole new architecture though, worst case scenario the Fury X is a gigantic Tonga GPU.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Maxwell is a whole new architecture though, worst case scenario the Fury X is a gigantic Tonga GPU.
Click to expand...

And Tonga did kick ass at tessellation where that's the current card's weak spot?

I'm kinda bored, it could be fun to play with a Fury X.
 
Dayaks said:
And Tonga did kick ass at tessellation where that's the current card's weak spot?

I'm kinda bored, it could be fun to play with a Fury X.
Click to expand...
Performance-wise the 285 is a huge disappointment but it was missing 300 some-odd SPs.
Matching the 285 with the 960, it's around 10% weaker at tessellation. Much better than previous GCN cards but not as good as Nvidia... still.

Comparing the 285 vs 960 across the board makes Tonga look really bad. I hope Fiji is more competitive with GM200.
 
Did we even confirm how well Fury X can OC? Becasue it's going to need to OC pretty well to keep up with custom Tis
 
Voltage is locked for review cards, apparently.
We won't know how well it OC's until it gets an update.

I guess we can compare it to a stock volt 980 Ti OC.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Did we even confirm how well Fury X can OC? Becasue it's going to need to OC pretty well to keep up with custom Tis
Click to expand...

unless stock Fury X has a sizable performance advantage (+10%) over stock 980Ti

I think OCed 980Ti is going to have the higher ceiling over OCed Fury X
 
He's also hitting VRAM capacity there, but his performance seems okay. Not really a good sign for sure.
I also don't seen any voltage sensor at all.

Aside from being cool and quiet, it doesn't seem impressive.
 
Cyph said:
This is one guy with one sample. But 70mhz overclock with stock voltage. That's turrible.
Click to expand...

Maybe if they can get the voltage unlocked it will see some improvement. 70mhz on stock voltage when temperature is not an issue isn't promising, though.
 
SilverSliver said:
Maybe if they can get the voltage unlocked it will see some improvement. 70mhz on stock voltage when temperature is not an issue isn't promising, though.
Click to expand...
The review packet did a measley +100 on the core and basically guaranteed that for everyone (it was a starting point).
So yes 70 MHz seems really bad.
 
Parja said:
Actually, he's not. He's just got the max on the graph set to 3GB. Getting mighty close at 3908MB, though.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at some of the Shadows of Mordor benchmarks and it's showing minimum FPS drops when overclocking at 4K - it's early but the 4GB may come back to haunt them.
 
Parja said:
Actually, he's not. He's just got the max on the graph set to 3GB. Getting mighty close at 3908MB, though.
Click to expand...
What do you expect it to say? "4000"? "4096"?
~3900 is the cap. As far as shitty VRAM monitoring programs go.
 
a few pages back another member referenced a talk he had with AMD on the fact that Fury won't be able to OC well if at all.
 
You know... there are these awesome things called game engines, and you'd think that by now they would know what resources are available, and how to best utilize them...sort of like memory.. All this talk of 4GB 6GB and 12GB, it's getting a bit annoying, wait for the reviews, and see how it works.

Even BF3 did this pretty good with the 680 vs the 7970, it would use over 2GB on the 7970, but the 680 would not stutter even at 1900mb used.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
You know... there are these awesome things called game engines, and you'd think that by now they would know what resources are available, and how to best utilize them...sort of like memory.. All this talk of 4GB 6GB and 12GB, it's getting a bit annoying, wait for the reviews, and see how it works.

Even BF3 did this pretty good with the 680 vs the 7970, it would use over 2GB on the 7970, but the 680 would not stutter even at 1900mb used.
Click to expand...


Drivers have a lot more to do with it then the game engine, game engines aren't smart that way, when close to the memory wall, @1900mb used the 680 shouldn't stutter.
 
gigatexal said:
a few pages back another member referenced a talk he had with AMD on the fact that Fury won't be able to OC well if at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah but AMD engineers said in the reveal live stream that the card is an overclocking beast.
I will wait to see but I will take the live stream over some guy that heard something.
 
razor1 said:
Drivers have a lot more to do with it then the game engine, game engines aren't smart that way, when close to the memory wall, @1900mb used the 680 shouldn't stutter.
Click to expand...

Being driver dependent sounds lovely when it comes to AMD. :D
 
SilverSliver said:
Being driver dependent sounds lovely when it comes to AMD. :D
Click to expand...


heh, well it happens on both IHV's, the thing now is though, instead of a gig disparity between the two cards its 2 or 8 gigs, which just makes it a pain for developers, cause they now how to shuffle things around or just not bother with one or the other cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top