FuryX completely abandoned now, barely matching the 1060 or 580!

H

Hameeeedo

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
187
Borderlands 3: barely at the level of 1060/580 @1080p, 980Ti is 20% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/borderlands-3-test-gpu-cpu

Assassin's Creed Odyssey: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 50% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-odyssey-test-gpu-cpu-2018

Ghost Recon Breakpoint: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/ghost-recon-breakpoint-beta-test-gpu-cpu

Metro Exodus: barely at the level of 1060 @1080p at Ultra settings, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/metro-exodus-v-1-0-1-1

Wolfenstein: Youngblood: massively slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 90% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-youngblood-test-gpu-cpu

Crackdown 3: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 20% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/crackdown-3-test-gpu-cpu

Ace Combat 7: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 40% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/ace-combat-7-skies-unknown-test-gpu-cpu

Resident Evil 2: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 70% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/resident-evil-2-test-gpu-cpu

Beyond Two Souls: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 50% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/beyond-two-souls-test-gpu-cpu

The Sinking City: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-sinking-city-staging-test-gpu-cpu

Draugen: slower than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 32% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/draugen-test-gpu-cpu

Total War THREE KINGDOMS: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-three-kingdoms-test-gpu-cpu

A Plague Tale Innocence: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/a-plague-tale-innocence-test-gpu-cpu

Fade to Silence: slightly faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 28% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/fade-to-silence-test-gpu-cpu

Anno 1800: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/anno1800-test-gpu-cpu

Tropico 6: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 35% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/tropico-6-test-gpu-cpu-2

Generation Zero: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/generation-zero-test-gpu-cpu

WRC 8 FIA World Rally Championship: barely faster than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/wrc-8-fia-world-rally-championship-test-gpu-cpu

Age of Wonders Planetfall: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/age-of-wonders-planetfall-test-gpu-cpu

Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey: barely faster than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/ancestors-the-humankind-odyssey

Dirt Ralley 2: barely faster than a 480 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/dirt-rally-2-0-test-gpu-cpu

Assetto Corsa Competizione: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 60% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/assetto-corsa-competizione-0-5-2-test-gpu-cpu
 
What about BF5? Forza Horizon? Etc etc?

Maybe i dont get out much but some of those games I've never heard of.

Is this accurate from you FuryX users out there or is there a little bit of cherry picking going on ?
 
its not always truth, as long as games are within 1080p and texture pools do not go over its 4gb limits, it will work on par with 580-590, 1060 on dx11, and 1070 in vulkan titles.

// their website often has bugged results, like one with vulkan.
 
Rvenger said:
Nobody cares here.
Click to expand...

the-shining-cold.jpg.480x0_q71_crop-scale.jpg
 
still a compute beast tho, yeah? maybe prices will drop faster now... sounds like a decent card for DC and stuff, and like just look at it yum
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
still a compute beast tho, yeah? maybe prices will drop faster now... sounds like a decent card for DC and stuff, and like just look at it yum
Click to expand...

I have different feelings for the FuryX given mine shit the bed just outside of warranty. It would be in a relative’s rig if it didn’t instead they have a 970... which is still respectable at 1080p.

They also essientially lied on AMD’s original benchmarks vs the 980ti, they showed they could beat it.

They also had wide spread pump issues and were purging their forums of reports (initially).

Most of my resentment for AMD comes from that card, actually. My Ryzen 2000 rigs run well so I am going back to neutral. But hell lol. Still get triggered when I see the name.
 
Hameeeedo said:
Borderlands 3: barely at the level of 1060/580 @1080p, 980Ti is 20% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/borderlands-3-test-gpu-cpu

Assassin's Creed Odyssey: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 50% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-odyssey-test-gpu-cpu-2018

Ghost Recon Breakpoint: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/ghost-recon-breakpoint-beta-test-gpu-cpu

Metro Exodus: barely at the level of 1060 @1080p at Ultra settings, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/metro-exodus-v-1-0-1-1

Wolfenstein: Youngblood: massively slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 90% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-youngblood-test-gpu-cpu

Crackdown 3: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 20% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/crackdown-3-test-gpu-cpu

Ace Combat 7: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 40% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/ace-combat-7-skies-unknown-test-gpu-cpu

Resident Evil 2: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 70% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/resident-evil-2-test-gpu-cpu

Beyond Two Souls: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 50% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/beyond-two-souls-test-gpu-cpu

The Sinking City: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/the-sinking-city-staging-test-gpu-cpu

Draugen: slower than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 32% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/draugen-test-gpu-cpu

Total War THREE KINGDOMS: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/total-war-three-kingdoms-test-gpu-cpu

A Plague Tale Innocence: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/a-plague-tale-innocence-test-gpu-cpu

Fade to Silence: slightly faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 28% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/fade-to-silence-test-gpu-cpu

Anno 1800: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 30% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/anno1800-test-gpu-cpu

Tropico 6: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 35% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/tropico-6-test-gpu-cpu-2

Generation Zero: barely faster than 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/generation-zero-test-gpu-cpu

WRC 8 FIA World Rally Championship: barely faster than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/wrc-8-fia-world-rally-championship-test-gpu-cpu

Age of Wonders Planetfall: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rts-/-стратегии/age-of-wonders-planetfall-test-gpu-cpu

Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey: barely faster than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 22% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/rpg/ролевые/ancestors-the-humankind-odyssey

Dirt Ralley 2: barely faster than a 480 @1080p, 980Ti is 25% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/dirt-rally-2-0-test-gpu-cpu

Assetto Corsa Competizione: slower than a 1060 @1080p, 980Ti is 60% faster!
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-гонки/assetto-corsa-competizione-0-5-2-test-gpu-cpu
Click to expand...

Oh look, a site I cannot read and only one game on this entire list that I even have, let alone played. LOL, nice try, again....... Dude, you must be really hard up for going against AMD as much as possible, oh well.
 
Honestly, I already know that the Sapphire Furies I used to have would still be fine from 1080p60 with Freesync monitors. Heck, I used the two with Rise of the Tomb Raider at 4k, using directx 12, without issue. I upgraded and sold them, though so, someone else is enjoying them now.
 
I had a Fury X at the end of last year. Played Apex Legends on it and it was slow as hell. The GPU is not doing well in recent games.
 
Rvenger said:
I had a Fury X at the end of last year. Played Apex Legends on it and it was slow as hell. The GPU is not doing well in recent games.
Click to expand...

Eh, sorry to hear that. I am pleased that I do not play so called online modern games because they are just not the same as things like UT2004 and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, which were a lot of fun. So, what did you end up getting?
 
ManofGod said:
Eh, sorry to hear that. I am pleased that I do not play so called online modern games because they are just not the same as things like UT2004 and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, which were a lot of fun. So, what did you end up getting?
Click to expand...


No clue. I had about 20 GPUs after that.

Right now RX 480 Red Devil in the Ryzen 1600 rig

RTX 2080 Gaming X Trio in the main rig with a 3800x.
 
Meh, I have a sapphire fury tri-x, as well as an asus fury nano... Both work just fine. Not sure what the point of this post was? It's a dated card, what was the expectation? I don't feel ripped off as I've gotten quite a bit out at this point and I can still play most games @ 1080p (which is what my monitor supports).
 
Actually I find this thread useful for current Vega and Radeon VII owners as it point to exactly what kind of future their GPU's will have once new tech are released, Navi in this newer scenario, but it wasn't too different as the scenario when first Polaris launched, as soon as the newer RX 480 was launched the more robust and potent Fury lines of GPU'S were abandoned in the driver support, each driver optimization was always focused on Polaris..

same scenario it's actually happening with VII and RX 5700 GPU'S, each driver optimization it's actually focused on Navi, everyone who bought Vega and VII gpus for longevity and *finewine* will be in the same scenario as fury is right now...

for AMD it's not a rentable solution to keep supporting the more expensive solutions after launching a cheaper gpu that perform similar to the more expensive one.. in one year or two.. we will have threads on how RX 5700 XT it's an absolutely beast proof of the AMD finewine because it destroy the more expensive VII and at launch it almost caught and touched that kind of performance but everything will be just due driver optimizations focused on Navi.. the same way driver optimizations were focused on Polaris..
 
Araxie said:
Actually I find this thread useful for current Vega and Radeon VII owners as it point to exactly what kind of future their GPU's will have once new tech are released, Navi in this newer scenario, but it wasn't too different as the scenario when first Polaris launched, as soon as the newer RX 480 was launched the more robust and potent Fury lines of GPU'S were abandoned in the driver support, each driver optimization was always focused on Polaris..

same scenario it's actually happening with VII and RX 5700 GPU'S, each driver optimization it's actually focused on Navi, everyone who bought Vega and VII gpus for longevity and *finewine* will be in the same scenario as fury is right now...

for AMD it's not a rentable solution to keep supporting the more expensive solutions after launching a cheaper gpu that perform similar to the more expensive one.. in one year or two.. we will have threads on how RX 5700 XT it's an absolutely beast proof of the AMD finewine because it destroy the more expensive VII and at launch it almost caught and touched that kind of performance but everything will be just due driver optimizations focused on Navi.. the same way driver optimizations were focused on Polaris..
Click to expand...

While you as a non owner find this useful, I as an owner find this useless... congratulations. I am still getting the performance I bought when I bought it. I didn't expect they would still be updating performance/drivers 5 years after the fact. I have a 280x as well, guess what... it still runs well. Did it gain a ton of performance... no, but I didn't buy it for its future performance, I bought it for what it was capable at at the time. If it got faster, sweet, if not... w/e. If you are making purchasing decisions based on hoping the performance will increase over time, you may want to re-evaluate. Honestly, it's a company, they are focusing their resources (much more minimal than nvidia, but that's not to make an excuse) on their newest releases. It's not like they're breaking support for their older models (that would p*ss me off), they just aren't focusing on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Ready4Dis said:
While you as a non owner find this useful, I as an owner find this useless... congratulations. I am still getting the performance I bought when I bought it. I didn't expect they would still be updating performance/drivers 5 years after the fact. I have a 280x as well, guess what... it still runs well. Did it gain a ton of performance... no, but I didn't buy it for its future performance, I bought it for what it was capable at at the time. If it got faster, sweet, if not... w/e. If you are making purchasing decisions based on hoping the performance will increase over time, you may want to re-evaluate. Honestly, it's a company, they are focusing their resources (much more minimal than nvidia, but that's not to make an excuse) on their newest releases. It's not like they're breaking support for their older models (that would p*ss me off), they just aren't focusing on them.
Click to expand...

That's sweet and all but I have to say I do own several AMD gpus currently active, and even own one all AMD only rig.. I am an AMD owner but a neutral one and I can be really critic.. I criticized A LOT the Fury X and I still consider it as a massive failure. (Hey I loved the fury Nano.. it was the only good part of the fury lines).. and I still think the 7970 (280x) it's actually the best gpu ever made followed closely by the 290X..

however my critics are not towards AMD only but to their annoying fans and loyalist who think everything made by AMD it's perfect and will always be perfect no matter what...
 
Araxie said:
That's sweet and all but I have to say I do own several AMD gpus currently active, and even own one all AMD only rig.. I am an AMD owner but a neutral one and I can be really critic.. I criticized A LOT the Fury X and I still consider it as a massive failure. (Hey I loved the fury Nano.. it was the only good part of the fury lines).. and I still think the 7970 (280x) it's actually the best gpu ever made followed closely by the 290X..

however my critics are not towards AMD only but to their annoying fans and loyalist who think everything made by AMD it's perfect and will always be perfect no matter what...
Click to expand...
Lol, yeah... neutral. I have owned both AMD and NVidia cards... I bought both for what they were worth at the time of purchase. It has nothing to do with AMD. If you weren't happy with your purchase, then I'm sorry you didn't inform yourself before purchase. I knew what I was buying and it was at my expectation and price I was willing to pay. I am not going to blindly join this guy in singing that AMD stopped optimizing for a card that's 5 years old. If you think it's warranted, good on you, you get to have your opinion just like I get to have mine. If you disagree, awesome, but just calling me an AMD fan when I provided an actual opinion and reason for why I felt that way makes you look much more like a fanboy than me :).
Good on you for having owned an all AMD rig, that's proof that you have no bias right there, lol. Next time maybe you'll even give a reason for your thoughts rather than just trying to talk down on people. I can be critical too, when I feel it's warranted. I can also be non critical when I don't think its warranted. You just admitted you've criticized the FURY X a lot because you've considered it a massive failure.. that right there is bias, regardless of if you've owned a different AMD card. Not everything AMD produces is worth the $ for it's performance and heat generating prowess (yes, that was a joke), but I don't feel like I made any bad purchases because I knew what I was buying before I payed for it. If I want more performance I will buy a card that isn't 5 years old, and I will research benchmarks for cards in my budget and buy the one that matches my needs for a price I'm comfortable with. I don't care if it's AMD, NVidia or Intel (if they actually make something competitive and don't overcharge). Keep stating how neutral you are while showing your bias and then claiming others are annoying fans.
 
Ready4Dis said:
This is very true, if you bought this card thinking you were going to be gaming @ 4k with max settings, you were only lying to yourself.
Click to expand...
Actually it was marketed as the ultimate card for 4k or something stupid like that. So this statement is a bit misleading, just as the original statement from amd was. I didn't buy the card, so i can't really comment on it's performance, but I recall the hardocp review wasn't impressive. No 4k gaming anyway, marketing aside.
 
travm said:
Actually it was marketed as the ultimate card for 4k or something stupid like that. So this statement is a bit misleading, just as the original statement from amd was. I didn't buy the card, so i can't really comment on it's performance, but I recall the hardocp review wasn't impressive. No 4k gaming anyway, marketing aside.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that Fury review got [H] on AMD's naughty list for awhile.
 
Ready4Dis said:
This is very true, if you bought this card thinking you were going to be gaming @ 4k with max settings, you were only lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

travm said:
Actually it was marketed as the ultimate card for 4k or something stupid like that. So this statement is a bit misleading, just as the original statement from amd was. I didn't buy the card, so i can't really comment on it's performance, but I recall the hardocp review wasn't impressive. No 4k gaming anyway, marketing aside.
Click to expand...

It was marketed as beating the 980ti with bullshit benchmarks and all. Then on launch no one replicated it.

DEBC44A4-8AE0-4737-96E1-6F6712698216.jpeg


https://www.kitguru.net/components/...ury-x-performance-results-worlds-fastest-gpu/
 
I bet 2 Fury X in crossfire still match or beat 2 980TI in SLI.

travm said:
Actually it was marketed as the ultimate card for 4k or something stupid like that. So this statement is a bit misleading, just as the original statement from amd was. I didn't buy the card, so i can't really comment on it's performance, but I recall the hardocp review wasn't impressive. No 4k gaming anyway, marketing aside.
Click to expand...
Fury X was also marketed as an overclockers dream and barely overclocked at all.

AMD marketing has been questionable for a long time.

However, I owned two of these Fury X cards in Crossfire and I really enjoyed them. They were quite solid for an AMD product IMO. They just worked.

My experience with a pair of Fury X in crossfire was a smoother experience than a pair of 1080TI in SLI after them and a pair of GTX 560 in SLI before them. I never had to turn off Crossfire. It either worked or it didn’t. When it didn’t add performance it didn’t take anything away. With SLI at the time - if SLI didn’t work you had to turn it off because there would be performance implications or weird issues. AMDs Crossfire also scaled significantly better than Nvidia’s SLI. The Fury X remained exceptionally quiet and cool in crossfire, exhausted the heat outside the case, had good minimum and consistent frame rates, looked and felt like a premium part, and drivers and Freesync was generally bug free while I had them. If not for the 4GB HBM size limitation starting to show severe performance drop implications at my triple monitor resolution of 7680x1440 I would still be happily running them today. I think 8GB would have been sufficient to this point. My friend Stitch1 didn’t want to get involved here, but he still has one and says it’s perfectly fine mated to his 34” 2560x1080 monitor. He hasn’t found anything yet that feels uncomfortably slow with Freesync, and has no real reason to upgrade he says until next year at earliest -- inline with the new console cycle. Not bad for a 5 - then 6 year old card.

To me, Vega was the real let down. I had such a good experience with Fury X that I bought a pair of Vega 56 for Crossfire at launch. The Vegas were broken nine ways from Sunday at launch. 3 months later when I sold the Vegas they were still so rough I despised the experience. It’ll take me a long time to trust AMD at a product launch again.
 
Last edited:
Nano in it's day was awesome for iTx small case build, had no issue OCing it to FuryX level clocks and maintaining it for the most part. Hooked it up to a 4K FreeSync monitor, many games I could play in 4K, the ones I could not I used a lower resolution like 3200x1800 and upscaled with great results. The card scaled with great quality while the 1070's sucked ass when scaling. You would be hard pressed back then telling the difference in performance between the 1070 and Nano. In fact when Doom upgraded with Vulcan, the Nano smoked the 1070 and first run through was on the Nano in 4K Ultra (Nightmare settings was too much) smooth and fun. I just concluded that pure Nvidia users/lovers dealing with scaling has only saw how Nvidia blurry soup solution, even Nvidia DSLL with dedicated hardware comes out as blurry soup looking for most games. AMD cards don't have that or are much better at it like the consoles, upscaling is a viable option if done right.

If the point of this thread that Nvidia Maxwell cards had longer longevity over the Fury line, I would point out Maxwell sucked both in Vulkan and DX12 while the Fury does much better there. The biggest hindrance for the Fury was the 4gb of ram and not as effective color compression that Nvidia has. It's performance was around the 1070 performance when the 1070 was launched. Anyways the Nano paid back it's cost for me due to mining some time ago, so no regrets there. I could toss it in the garbage knowing it paid me more then I paid for it.
 
travm said:
Actually it was marketed as the ultimate card for 4k or something stupid like that. So this statement is a bit misleading, just as the original statement from amd was. I didn't buy the card, so i can't really comment on it's performance, but I recall the hardocp review wasn't impressive. No 4k gaming anyway, marketing aside.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point, it was a known quantity, if you still bought it after doing your research then it's on you (and I'm saying this more to the people on this forumn than people in general). Just because McDonalds says it has the most tasty burgers in the world doesn't mean much... They interviewed 10,000 people until one person agreed, it makes it a true statement in ateast one instance. Same for GPU/CPU, they pick their best benchmark and show how great it performs. If you don't do a comparison or read reviews, then I'm sorry you got taken, please do better research next time.
Non of this has anything to do with the OP complaint though, it was known at release it wasn't ever going to get more memory to better compete at high resolutions in the future. So why 5 years later is someone complaining that it isn't holding its own anymore... nobody should be surprised with this, nor should anyone be taking it as AMD is failing b cause it didn't gain as much performance as they hoped. I don't recall AMD ever stating that the fury x in 5 years would be #1, and I don't recall any benchmark that would lead someone to think this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top