Kyle or Brent: Did you intend for 4 out of the 5 games used in the review to be GamesWorks, with the usual Nvidia tricks?
Does it matter? That's what people are playing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kyle or Brent: Did you intend for 4 out of the 5 games used in the review to be GamesWorks, with the usual Nvidia tricks?
Did anandtech not get a review card?
That wasn't a flagship cardGTX 960?
Kyle or Brent: Did you intend for 4 out of the 5 games used in the review to be GamesWorks, with the usual Nvidia tricks?
Still, this really is a sub-par release by AMD. With prior cards like the 7970 / 280X, the 6970, or the 5870 when cores and memory were overclocked by the same percentage, framerates scaled linearly on a 1:1 basis. I wonder if having such slow memory was bottlenecking the card as much as the 4GB limit. From the sites that did overclocking, it looked like boosts to the cores returned about 1/2 that same percentage boost in performance. This card needed more HBM and faster HBM. It also should be been available with a base waterblock and two G1/4 ports rather than having the full AiO treatment.
The last time AMD had its act together was with the release of the 5XXX series gpu. It's just getting sad at this point.
After Anand moved on, they are much slower on the draw nowadays.
Fury X was added to AnandTech's GPU Bench list earlier today, but the article itself is missing.Good to hear. I thought they got KitGuru'd. I miss the in depth architecture discussion.
That wasn't a flagship card
I think AMD is not a fool, they have to lower the price in order to sell these cards like hot cakes. The comparison between fury X and 980ti is like a comparison between AMD 6970 and gtx 580, where the former was 150$ cheaper than the later, with performance difference marginal. But 6970 was always a hot selling card. 580 was not a failure, but was considered for enthusasts . So AMD has to revise the price of fury x to be 150$ less than 980ti.
Zarathustra[H];1041688682 said:Unless there is some other metric that is screwing stuff up, the Fury X has the fastest RAM of any GPU out there, at a bandwidth of 512GB/s, compared to 336GB/s of the Titan X and 980Ti.
Unless there are other inherent problems with HBM that we are unaware of (like high latency?) the memory certainly isn't to blame.
I'm going to wager a guess that Fiji was originally designed for a smaller process, and they had to re-adapt it to 28nm when it became clear that nothing smaller was going to be available in time for launch, and that this, totally messed up the power/clock curves and resulted in the subpar performance we see today.
Zarathustra[H];1041688547 said:IMHO, the best part of this AMD launch was that it scared Nvidia into launching the 980Ti earlier than they planned at only $650.
GTX 960?
The Bottom Line
We praised the GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970, especially the latter, for great value and performance with incredibly impressive power savings. We honestly can't say that the GeForce GTX 960 represents such an impressive value as the GeForce GTX 970 did. The GeForce GTX 960 seems a bit constrained, even though it is being offered at a great price of $199. (Editors Note: The MSI GTX 960 GAMING 2G review here today is selling right now at Newegg for $239.99, and went out-of-stock and back in stock literally while typing this sentence, so YMMV.)
We evaluated MSIs GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G today, a highly factory overclocked video card that operated at 1366MHz while gaming. At this clock speed the GeForce GTX 960 is competitive to an overclocked AMD Radeon R9 285. The MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G is able to provide a better gameplay experience than the R9 285, but not overwhelmingly so. However, when you consider that the GeForce GTX 960 cards should still be less expensive than the AMD Radeon R9 285 cards for right now, it does sweeten the pot and gives gamers another option in this price range.
The MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G video card performed exceptionally well with this GPU. It is overclocked rather high, and operates well above its boost speed with the Twin Frozr V cooling system. With an operating frequency of 1366MHz while gaming, you get a much faster than stock reference GTX 960 performance out of this video card without even you having to touch an overclocking knob or slider. We can't wait to dive into overclocking and see how much farther we can push the MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G manually. That may be the one saving grace of GeForce GTX 960, enthusiast overclocking potential.
If you are looking for a solid custom retail video card, packed full of features and built for overclocking, take a look at the MSI GeForce GTX 960 GAMING 2G. However we are seeing an price of $239.99 on that card this morning, when we were expecting the MSI GTX 960 GAMING 2G to have a street price of $219.00. Also, this morning you can find plenty of AMD R9 285 video cards for under $200, even down to $179 after $30 MIR, which makes this space a bit confusing and simply tough to simply call one "the best."
The Bottom Line
The new AMD Fiji GPU and Fury X video card looks awesome on paper, but has underwhelmed and disappointed us when it comes to real world gameplay. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X feels like a proof of concept for HBM technology.
In terms of gaming performance, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X seems like better competition for the GeForce GTX 980 4GB video card, rather than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. GTX 980 cards are selling for as low at $490 today. This is not a good thing since the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is priced at $649, the same price as the GeForce GTX 980 Ti.
Usually trying to decide between two video cards at the same price point is a wash, with very even and split performance. However, this is not the case this time with the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti. There is a definite pattern that leads to one video card being the best value for the money, and it is GeForce GTX 980 Ti, not the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.
Limited VRAM for a flagship $649 video card, sub-par gaming performance for the price, and limited display support options with no HDMI 2.0 and no DVI port. To be honest, we aren't entirely sure who the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is really built for? The AMD Radeon Fury X is a confusing product, like a technology demo not fully realized, a showcase for HBM only but with no real substance. The AMD Radeon Fury X looks to be a great marketing showcase, but its prowess starts waning when you consider its value to gamers and hardware enthusiasts.
Did anandtech not get a review card?
(first thing posted under the ASRock ITX board review)// For readers expecting the AMD Fury X review, unfortunately Ryan has been battling a virus this week and despite his best efforts it has taken its toll. The review is near completion but with a couple of key elements still to do - please keep your eyes peeled over the next few days for the full analysis.
wow it is not as fast as it could be but at least they are getting us in the direction we need to go.... If this had been an Nvidia product, most of you would be singing a different tune....
G-Force 5xxx want to be competitor to the Radeon 9500 series...
Wow isn't this spot on
possible that they live in mom's basement perhaps?
GameWorks
...
i don't get all this negativity! this is a very well performing card but i has one issue, Price! they will drop it price and will become very, very attractive and with better drivers the performance will increase substantially. i personally don't see it as gloomy as you guys do...
G-Force 5xxx want to be competitor to the Radeon 9500 series...
Agree 100% that if this was priced against the 980, this would have been a Win!
Unfortunately I am not sure about the price drop. I hope you are right on that though.
It's way way way WAY more than twice the calls. in the 3dmark benchmark my machine was able to do right over 5 times as many calls.No its both. Youre able to draw twice the calls with DX12 vs 11, which is primarily GPU intensive.
What reviews have you been reading to make such a bold statement, it's been all over, I left out Toms because that discussion is done and they are pretty shady
quick examples off the top of my head
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/25.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,26.html
It's just that the games H has in their lineup were better on 980Ti along with their testing methods being different yada yada. I don't like their game selection personally; witcher 3 was plagued with issues on Kepler and AMD, GTA V is just garbage game I can't get in to, it's just so boring, and Dead Island games are way more fun than dying light. Doesn't mean that they aren't honestly reviewed.
G-Force 5xxx was pretty meh so was Radeon 2xxx was pretty meh Both were essentially personal heaters at the top end converting electricity to heat then blowing it at the back with force that will melt your face off.
I think the feeling of doom and gloom stems from the fact that pretty much the rest of the line-up from AMD is largely a rebrand granted slightly updated things here and there but no real change. So it makes the launch seem like slapped together to show they did something but it's not something that's ready.
Let's get off this stupid GameWorks issue. That is not the thing that is holding the Fury X back.
Seems to me some AMD fan boys are getting upset at the criticism and disappointment (backed up by [H]'s excellent review) towards the Fury X. If you actually read the posts you'd realize that most here are disappointed that Fury X doesn't live up to the hype/expectation that many had for it. We all want good competition between both camps in order to get better performance at lower price points.
and if you had bothered to read any of my posts, it would have been "lets wait and see"
people getting peeved at AMD for introducing a new tech that makes a 4GB card perform almost as good as a 6GB one ought to tell you something.... the performance of this card is only going to get better with time....
Have to disagree; Gameworks is a HUGE issue of which AMD is just a relatively small factor. To properly address the damage Gameworks is doing in the gaming industry we would have to compare performance of Gameworks modified code vs. non-modified code; which cannot be easily done objectively nor without legal consequences from Nvidia.