MSI R9 390X GAMING vs ASUS STRIX R9 Fury Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
MSI R9 390X GAMING vs ASUS STRIX R9 Fury Review - We are going to re-test the $429 MSI R9 390X GAMING 8G video card with the new Catalyst 15.7 driver and compare it directly to the $579 ASUS STRIX R9 Fury DC3 video card with Catalyst 15.7. We think this video card will put the entire Radeon Fury line in a perspective we did not see coming, but you should know about.
 
Great comparison, one I think many of us had in mind when we saw Fury Pro's initial review. Also great seeing the cost implications thrown in, especially since other reviewers seem to be considering Fury X and Fury Pro in some sort of price vacuum disregarding the fact that you can get 90% of the performance for only 70% the cost.
 
wow. makes the sub $400 290x 8gb that much more of an enticing and sensible buy. all that's really left is to see is where on the performance spectrum the 390 lands.
 
Considering that the Fury performs relatively worse at lower res, I wonder if the 390X beats it at 1080p
 
I guess one advantage of the Fury is it seems to draw about 120W less power than the 390X.
 
was hoping that lower power draw translated to appreciably better oc'ing over hawaii. whatever oc'ing enabled driver amd might have cooking, they'd better get it out quick.
 
Considering that the Fury performs relatively worse at lower res, I wonder if the 390X beats it at 1080p

Great point, and I bet it does. Of course the opposite could be said at 4k.......granted game play with little eyecandy and low fps.

Also, loved this comparison. Well thought out, great job fellas.
 
The million dollar question, Kyle/Brent is: WHY are the numbers so close. The vram can't be making the difference, I'd think, at these resolutions, and if the Fury is the next gen flagship GPU (As evidenced by its tessellation performance), why is it (relatively) losing out? Is it the OC'd clocks of the 390X? Immature drivers?
 
Boy, pairing my existing XFX 290X-DD(non-Black, non-OC edition) 4GB with another of its kind(currently $355) is starting to look like a pretty safe way to get a decent performance boost while skipping this generation of cards. Crossfire certainly has its share of hassles, but there's no point in upgrading to just a 390X, and both the 980Ti & Fury X are too pricey for the amount of extra performance they provide. At the very least it should be enough to hold me over until we see if AMD can do something better with a Fury follow-up making use of FinFET and 2nd-gen HBM.
 
You guys are really going in depth on the new cards, really liking this.

Any idea when were going to get some CrossFire reviews, that's what I am really looking forward to.

Another cool thing to see would be to down-clock some of the Hawaii GPUs to Fiji speeds and see how much the HMB impacts at a similar clock speed.
 
Last edited:
Conclusion is right on point. Factor in power consumption and I'm sticking with team green for now
 
The million dollar question, Kyle/Brent is: WHY are the numbers so close. The vram can't be making the difference, I'd think, at these resolutions, and if the Fury is the next gen flagship GPU (As evidenced by its tessellation performance), why is it (relatively) losing out? Is it the OC'd clocks of the 390X? Immature drivers?

Seems like AMD designed the Fury for 4K resolutions. But the card can't maintain an acceptable 4K frame rate with just one card unless it's an older title. Neither can the 980 or 980ti. So when testing the single card performance you have to give it the resolutions that it can handle with one card which is 1440p. At 1440p HBM's large pipeline doesn't come into play as there just isn't enough stuff for it to do. At 4K it does. But the GPU core isn't fast enough for single card 4K so HBM is wasted unless doing multiple cards. When you surround a 28nm core with HBM, you can't physically get enough power into the cramped space.

For 4K gaming there isn't really a single card solution available at this time. Maybe next generation. I don't have an issue with the Fury pricing as it seems that it's really good at 4K when in CrossfireX it seems. I'm not willing to become another SLi / CrossfireX beta tester to find out. Been there; done that. Both companies suck ass at it.
 
Good reason to keep R9 290X cards if you have them.

Well done review.

Why would anyone want to buy either of these Fury cards?
 
Seems like AMD designed the Fury for 4K resolutions. But the card can't maintain an acceptable 4K frame rate with just one card unless it's an older title. Neither can the 980 or 980ti. So when testing the single card performance you have to give it the resolutions that it can handle with one card which is 1440p. At 1440p HBM's large pipeline doesn't come into play as there just isn't enough stuff for it to do. At 4K it does. But the GPU core isn't fast enough for single card 4K so HBM is wasted unless doing multiple cards. When you surround a 28nm core with HBM, you can't physically get enough power into the cramped space.
So... GPU and vram amount meant for 1440 tied to HBM tech meant for 4k? That might be a fair assessment.
I'm not willing to become another SLi / CrossfireX beta tester to find out. Been there; done that. Both companies suck ass at it.
THIS.
I had the 4850s on launch week for CF, and it was a nightmare. Ended up returning them and getting a single card instead. Haven't gone back to a multi-gpu solution since, AMD or Nvidia.
 
Wow this was a depressing review.


I kept hoping it would get better somehow. Is not the case. At this point I am really wondering just what the heck AMD is thinking. Something must have happened in the background that made this just a disaster.


In AMD financial news.....
Was going to short AMD stock the day the R9 series dropped. Wish I would have.
 
Boy, pairing my existing XFX 290X-DD(non-Black, non-OC edition) 4GB with another of its kind(currently $355) is starting to look like a pretty safe way to get a decent performance boost while skipping this generation of cards. Crossfire certainly has its share of hassles, but there's no point in upgrading to just a 390X, and both the 980Ti & Fury X are too pricey for the amount of extra performance they provide. At the very least it should be enough to hold me over until we see if AMD can do something better with a Fury follow-up making use of FinFET and 2nd-gen HBM.

I just picked up a used 295x2 for $450 from someone looking to "upgrade" to Fury. I fully expect this to hold me over until next year.
 
So... GPU and vram amount meant for 1440 tied to HBM tech meant for 4k? That might be a fair assessment.

980ti has 96 rops. Fury X has 64. I think that the Fury X only has 64 because they can't physically fit more in the smaller footprint. Remember HBM and the interposer take up a helluva lot of room on the die. This is why everyone is waiting on a 16nm and 14nm technology. I would bet that Nvidia would run into the same problem if they tried to use 28nm tech with HBM.

GlobalFoundries and TSMC hold the keys to the next generation of cards.
 
how is the cpu utilization %? At 1080p fury craps out and 4k takes the lead. Clearly, there's a sticking point somewhere.
 
It's pretty well established that 4K gaming is not feasible without more than 4GB of memory, which isn't possible with 1st gen HBM.

That leaves me viewing the R9 Fury series as AMD's desire for their customers to underwrite their R&D. That's not uncommon in any bleeding-edge tech industry.

NVIDA's stated plan for Pascal allows them to wait until HBM2 is available, bypassing the entire issue of memory constraints.

NVIDIA can always roll out an 8GB variation of their 980 and 980Ti, if 4K gaming starts capturing more market share before Pascal hits production.

AMD, being one of the primary developers of this technology, doesn't have that option, since they don't have the financial wherewithal to foot the bill until HBM2 is developed and brought to production.
 
I am so glad I went 290X instead of holding out for Fury. For 270$ I got a 1100Mhz XFX Black 290X that easily performs as good as a card that cost double! Thank god for the [H] keeping their reviews honest and leading me to smart buying decisions.
 
I was going to say that a review of the MSI R9 390X GAMING vs ASUS STRIX R9 Fury, but at 4K and with Ctossfire would be interesting.

But I don't want any more depressing reviews of the Fury series!!!! :(
 
I'll take it even further. Why spend nearly $500 on a 390x when you can get a slightly slower R290x for under $300 ? Sometimes well under $300.
 
I'll take it even further. Why spend nearly $500 on a 390x when you can get a slightly slower R290x for under $300 ? Sometimes well under $300.

Exactly. And remember when 290xs were going for $260-75 with free games not too long ago?
 
980ti has 96 rops. Fury X has 64. I think that the Fury X only has 64 because they can't physically fit more in the smaller footprint. Remember HBM and the interposer take up a helluva lot of room on the die. This is why everyone is waiting on a 16nm and 14nm technology. I would bet that Nvidia would run into the same problem if they tried to use 28nm tech with HBM.

GlobalFoundries and TSMC hold the keys to the next generation of cards.

HBM is on separate dies from the main chip. The interposer is a giant chip that the main chip and the HBM chips sit on. Don't the ROP's sit on the main chip? Why would either HBM or interposer affect the available area on the main chip
 
I'll take it even further. Why spend nearly $500 on a 390x when you can get a slightly slower R290x for under $300 ? Sometimes well under $300.


Damn shame we didn't think about that a month ago...

It will take all of these things combined to prove to use gamers why we should spend $429 on a Radeon R9 390X instead of getting a Radeon R9 290X for cheaper due to price cuts from retailers. Some costs on those 290X custom cards are as low as ~$309 after rebate.
 
I was considering getting the AMD Fury, but it just doesn't warrant enough of a need to get it over the 390x or the 390.. The Fury has two good advantages... lower wattage and better Tesselation, but not for the tremendous price difference especially with the 980 sitting there for $50-$70 less ...The 390 performs equal or 5% more in performance to the 290x now.

The 390x can rival the 980 being equal in some benchmarks, higher in benchmarks, or just slightly below in FPS. I'm kind of considering the 390x now instead of the 390.. It's a great middle ground between all the mid-higher end video cards.. The 390x could and should be priced $30 cheaper ($400) which would be perfect.. Anyway.. I'm doing my research on most of this, keeping a log of the FPS differences to help me choose on which video card to buy...and waiting on the Fury Nano to be released... to finally decide on which video card to get..
 
I'll take it even further. Why spend nearly $500 on a 390x when you can get a slightly slower R290x for under $300 ? Sometimes well under $300.

that's the cheapest, but most average $330-$350 and can go to $400 for the 290x.. Okay let's say you did buy the 290x for $300.. Why would you when a 390 is just $30 more, has 8gb of VRAM and performs the same or 5% better than the 290x..? IDK about you, but I'm willing to spend $30 more for a better video card...
 
It seems this generation you really have to do your homework before you buy.
Performance varies greatly depending on resolution and IQ and what works good at 4k may not be as good for 1080p.

For example a 970 may beat a 390x when overclocked at 1080p but won't stand a chance at 2160p. Fury is even worse as its probably slower at 1080p but trades blows at 2160p and is faster at 4k.
 
It's pretty well established that 4K gaming is not feasible without more than 4GB of memory, which isn't possible with 1st gen HBM.

Sorry, but that is completely false. There are countless reviews showing that the 4 GB HBM is NOT the bottleneck for 4k. These guys had a problem with 1440p with Dying light, but everything else has shown the Fury X to match the 980ti at 4k. Even with crossfire playing 4k, the 4 GB memory was not an issue. Please stop with the B.S.

Awesome review BTW.
 
It seems this generation you really have to do your homework before you buy.
Performance varies greatly depending on resolution and IQ and what works good at 4k may not be as good for 1080p.

For example a 970 may beat a 390x when overclocked at 1080p but won't stand a chance at 2160p. Fury is even worse as its probably slower at 1080p but trades blows at 2160p and is faster at 4k.

Should 2160p be 1440p? 2160p would be 4K :p
 
Can't wait until Fury nano "2% better performance over the 390x for only $100 more!!!!!"
 
Back
Top