FuryX aging tremendously bad in 2017

cageymaru said:
MSI RX 480 Gaming X 8 GB Review.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/23.html

/shrug.
Click to expand...
Nice find for a 2 years old review! It's completely useless and irrelevant for the matter at hand. The drop off in FuryX performance happened late 2017 and onward. Also TPU doesn't update it's charts for all cards because they bench so much cards.

See the links here for updated and focused comparisons:
https://hardforum.com/threads/furyx-aging-tremendously-bad-in-2017.1948025/page-7#post-1043741488

kirbyrj said:
The real question is why are you even bothering to post hundreds of links? You are trying to prove a point that nobody is disagreeing with because you have some bug up your ass about the fury card. I've never seen someone make it a personal Vendetta to prove which three year old card is better.
Click to expand...
I am not bothered, you are the one being bothered by my posts, if you don't like them simply ignore'em.

Is posting evidence and discussing technical matters on a technical forum now a "Venedetta" ? LOL!

My argument here is the falseness of the so called AMD finewine, here we have a whole AMD architecture being castrated and thrown in the gutter as time goes on, which goes against that phony finewine crap, Kepler aged horribly, Fiji went the same way. Arcs from both AMD and NVIDIA can suffer the same fate, it's not tied to NVIDIA alone as AMD fanatics claim.
 
The fine wine business really only applied to the first couple GCN architectures.... (7900s/290s)

It's common knowledge the Fury X was a huge letdown.
 
horrorshow said:
The fine wine business
Click to expand...

The 'fine wine' business largely applied to the theory that release AMD drivers were trash, and slowly improved to take advantage of the hardware.

In the case of the Fury X, the hardware apparently was never there.

Not that this is a surprise; every AMD release since Nvidia released the GTX680 has been a disappointment.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
The 'fine wine' business largely applied to the theory that release AMD drivers were trash, and slowly improved to take advantage of the hardware.

In the case of the Fury X, the hardware apparently was never there.

Not that this is a surprise; every AMD release since Nvidia released the GTX680 has been a disappointment.
Click to expand...

I agree that the releases have been disappointing, especially when the FuryX was advertised as a "5K gaming card". Vega 64 at launch was ugly as well.
However, the topic for the tread is how it has aged, and it has aged nicely as shown in my previous post.

We see more and more evidence that the Vega64 is aging nicely as well. Most rescent case in point:
https://www.techpowerup.com/246226/...hdr-at-4k-lower-on-amd-hardware-versus-nvidia
 
funkydmunky said:
Yes seriously. That was your quote I was responding to.
So NOW it is good. Got it.
Click to expand...

What? We were talking about the Fury X and I never said anything at all about the nVidia card good or bad. What in the hell are you blabbering on about?

Are you guys really defending the Fury X?
 
Nightfire said:
We see more and more evidence that the Vega64 is aging nicely as well. Most rescent case in point:
https://www.techpowerup.com/246226/...hdr-at-4k-lower-on-amd-hardware-versus-nvidia
Click to expand...
This is not relevant, this is a bug in version 1803 of Windows 10 that causes unnecessary hit with HDR, it shouldn't be like this.
Latest tests reveal the 1080 is still slightly ahead of the Vega 64
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Grafi...Rangliste-GPU-Grafikchip-Benchmark-1174201/2/
 
I think some of you struggle to understand what 'aged' means. If a cards gets 60 fps in most games 3 years and and still gets 60 fps in most games today at the same settings, it has aged well. If a card gets 100 fps in games 3 years ago and gets 70 fps in todays, it has aged poorly. Get it?

Whether or not you think the FuryX is good or not, it is a useless subjective debate.

Whether it has aged well, is a much more objective find.
 
I also want to point out that the Fury X supports Freesync 2, which has reviewed to be pretty awesome. I'll be getting one in a month or 2. :D

BTW, I have a Fury X for sale if anyone really wants to stick it to this guy! :p
 
Nightfire said:
We see more and more evidence that the Vega64 is aging nicely as well. Most rescent case in point:
https://www.techpowerup.com/246226/...hdr-at-4k-lower-on-amd-hardware-versus-nvidia
Click to expand...

I don't think Vega is aging terribly, though it was still a bit of a disappointment (to me too!). Thing's got to be more expensive to produce than a 1080 Ti, and it runs like a hotter/louder 1080. Though generally speaking, that's been AMD's schtick since Nvidia released the GTX680.

As for the HDR stuff- I wouldn't use that as a point of comparison, and I have an 'HDR' monitor sitting in front of me. We're seeing performance deviations with both vendors where there really should be exactly none.

Now, if it isn't rectified...
 
I find this ineresting this thread is stll alive but in order to keep clear why we dont see the fundamental problems to the Fury X performance

in these games you are comparing 2 different architecture from same generation but what if we compared to AMD only?

Fury compared to Ellesmere used to be a 10-15% difference in favor of Fiji now the games barely make any difference between Fiji Pro and Ellesmere XT,now comparing to Nvidia Maxwell had advantage over reference Fury X due to clock speed, and given games used a lot of geometry and were touching some of the overhead limit on Directx11 for AMD. so the problem here are:

Some games use more Geometry than others, where Fiji fails, a lack of Pixel/polygon discard and polygon throughput is rather than low.
Fiji itself has a bottlenecked archtiecture it keeps the same amount of rasterizer and rops as 290x while increaisng 45% the shader.
Games are using nearly the top of Memory limit Fiji has, meanwhile AMD lacked of proper optimization from here.
Games might be cpu bound in certain area while AMD overhead in Directx 11 is still greater than nvidia there is no need to wonder why some games show this.
Developers dont see why really there is a need to optimize for a smaller market, yeah they were sold but .AMD marketshare in Fiji is even smaller than AMD vs Nvidia Consumer GPUs.

at the end AMD probably doesnt care nor developers does
 
Last edited:
Nightfire said:
Punctuation is your friend. And don't give me that "English is not my first language" no sense. Most languages use punctuation.
Click to expand...
yea right , still the sentence doesnt lose much coherence, I doubt you cant make pauses yourself
 
Are people really still arguing a GPU that came out in 2015. I am not an AMD GPU fan but this is getting very asinine.
 
Chimpee said:
Are people really still arguing a GPU that came out in 2015. I am not an AMD GPU fan but this is getting very asinine.
Click to expand...

I partially understand the guy, AMD fanboys had for a time that stupid "fine wine" motto, and spread FUD as "AMD cards age better than Nvidia cards" and large etc, without realizing that it was mostly because AMD has been using GCN since HD7000 series, and most optimizations from GCN 1.3 improved all below down to GCN 1.0, however AMD also realized the huge work it carried that model and changed that since polaris... (which in fact all drivers updates and optimizations were made for RX 480 even when the more powerfull Fury X still was relevant in the market).. they adopted an nvidia-like generational approach, offer driver support and technological support for older GPUS but optimizing only for current generation, which of course affected anything older than polaris.

So yes, in part I understand why the crusade to shut up that "fine wine, AMD cards age better" thing.. which has been already proven false by [H]OCP... however the same reason why AMD GPUS were called "fine wine" are the reason why nvidia Maxwell GPUS are still relevant today, due architectural similarities with Pascal which may continue with Turing if major changes aren't made over Volta..
 
Araxie said:
I partially understand the guy, AMD fanboys had for a time that stupid "fine wine" motto, and spread FUD as "AMD cards age better than Nvidia cards" and large etc, without realizing that it was mostly because AMD has been using GCN since HD7000 series, and most optimizations from GCN 1.3 improved all below down to GCN 1.0, however AMD also realized the huge work it carried that model and changed that since polaris... (which in fact all drivers updates and optimizations were made for RX 480 even when the more powerfull Fury X still was relevant in the market).. they adopted an nvidia-like generational approach, offer driver support and technological support for older GPUS but optimizing only for current generation, which of course affected anything older than polaris.

So yes, in part I understand why the crusade to shut up that "fine wine, AMD cards age better" thing.. which has been already proven false by [H]OCP... however the same reason why AMD GPUS were called "fine wine" are the reason why nvidia Maxwell GPUS are still relevant today, due architectural similarities with Pascal which may continue with Turing if major changes aren't made over Volta..
Click to expand...

I get it too, just it feels like it this is flogging a dead horse to the bones. There is really no point to continue arguing a dead point.
 
I could understand that a bit more, but his issue is just with Fury X not the idea of AMD cards aging better in general. Plus by this point I doubt engineers are truly worried about Fury X performance anyway. It was a good card when it came out but it was always going to be limited due to the 4GB of HBM.
 
Araxie said:
I partially understand the guy, AMD fanboys had for a time that stupid "fine wine" motto, and spread FUD as "AMD cards age better than Nvidia cards" and large etc, without realizing that it was mostly because AMD has been using GCN since HD7000 series, and most optimizations from GCN 1.3 improved all below down to GCN 1.0, however AMD also realized the huge work it carried that model and changed that since polaris... (which in fact all drivers updates and optimizations were made for RX 480 even when the more powerfull Fury X still was relevant in the market).. they adopted an nvidia-like generational approach, offer driver support and technological support for older GPUS but optimizing only for current generation, which of course affected anything older than polaris.

So yes, in part I understand why the crusade to shut up that "fine wine, AMD cards age better" thing.. which has been already proven false by [H]OCP... however the same reason why AMD GPUS were called "fine wine" are the reason why nvidia Maxwell GPUS are still relevant today, due architectural similarities with Pascal which may continue with Turing if major changes aren't made over Volta..
Click to expand...
right, now Fiji got Keplered! wait this isnt really about drivers.. now we need a new term, Fiji'd?
 
Fine Wine? Not all aged wine ferment well. My 7970 aged extremely well and is hands of a friend who plays World of Warships, he maxed out everything and gets over 60 fps, doesn't understand what vertical sync is about but is grinning ear to ear even with tearing. Now my Fiji (Nano) is sitting on one of my desks waiting to be tested to confirm it is indeed bad - after about 8 months of 24/7 mining it may have not aged well, then again it could be the ribbon cable connected to it - I just at this time don't care that much about it, mining wise now days it would be less than 75cents a day profit - would make for a good small build if it survived the mining torture.
 
Chimpee said:
I get it too, just it feels like it this is flogging a dead horse to the bones. There is really no point to continue arguing a dead point.
Click to expand...
Some people still contest that point even after all the evidence I posted, resorting to old pathetic TPU reviews to save them from the truth.
FlawleZ said:
As long as Hameedo is around this thread will never die.
Click to expand...
I doubt that very much, but maybe when Maxwell or Vega ages badly I will post something about them in a new thread!

Nightfire said:
LOL I think most people put him on their ignore list.
Click to expand...
LOL back at you, only rigid AMD fanatics did! Which begs the question, why haven't you?
 
Gideon said:
I could understand that a bit more, but his issue is just with Fury X not the idea of AMD cards aging better in general.
Click to expand...
No, I said this very thing in the first few posts of this thread, if you cared to read to understand instead of blindly defending a failed argument:
Hameeeedo said:
The goal is to show the arcs that age worse, and to stop the nonsense that NVIDIA gimps their old arcs on purpose, some AMD fans even think Fermi and Maxwell already aged badly!! Someone here already called the 1070 aging badly! AMD fans go through huge lengths to fantasize about a magical finewine thing for their GPUs, which -with the current evidence- clearly doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top