AMD Fury series coming soon.

F

frunction

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
214
This thread is to discuss the hotly anticipated AMD Fury line of cards. Please keep information regarding the 300 series in the other thread.

fury05.jpg
 
Last edited:
When Daz (Dazmode.com) put in an order for 2150rpm fans from Nidec, he requested them being painted black, which they were.

This is likely the same scenario, as another photo prior to the AMD badging on the fan was grey. It's probably a 2150 or 1850.
 
Vittra said:
When Daz (Dazmode.com) put in an order for 2150rpm fans from Nidec, he requested them being painted black, which they were.

This is likely the same scenario, as another photo prior to the AMD badging on the fan was grey. It's probably a 2150 or 1850.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking as well.
 
Maddness said:
That's the best shot we have had yet. Looks pretty damn sweet.
Click to expand...



If HBM promises to bring us smaller boards again the gods will have listened to our decade of pleas. Got to a point you literally had to judge what case to get based on the internal dimensions. Now days everything about a PC is pretty much modular so it's no longer much of an issue, but I still dislike the incredible lengths we've got accustomed to.
 
I love the new design.......no matter how much heat this thing gives off at least it all gets pumped outside the case...and even my cheap ass case has a 120mm fan spot close by....my amazon credit card might hate me;)
 
I think the card itself looks kinda dull and ugly, even the R9 295X2 looked better, but whatever, I'm curious to see how this performs.
 
Wow a chart that tells us numbers but we have no idea if its real!
Lets talk about it like it is!
 
Before the Fire Strike bench was taken down, it reported a graphics score of 7932, which the chart reports as 7873 for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

But apart from that, I'm inclined to believe the numbers. So again it all boils down to price (goddamn this is like the 3rd time I've said this in the past hour lol).
 
n=1 said:
Before the Fire Strike bench was taken down, it reported a graphics score of 7932, which the chart reports as 7873 for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

But apart from that, I'm inclined to believe the numbers. So again it all boils down to price (goddamn this is like the 3rd time I've said this in the past hour lol).
Click to expand...

I think it's fake and from what reports are saying, they are using old drivers.

With the newer drivers I would expect much higher scores.
 
AMD-Radeon-Fury-X-3DMark-Score.jpg


Is 15.15 an old driver? In any case as long as the price is right (5th time I said this tonight -_-), the performance is pretty good as it is, so it's not like the chart is portraying Fiji in bad light lol.
 
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Do you want a Fury that's almost as fast as a 980TI and $600 or do you want a Fury that's 10% faster than the 980 Ti and is $899.99?
 
Tanquen said:
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Do you want a Fury that's almost as fast as a 980TI and $600 or do you want a Fury that's 10% faster than the 980 Ti and is $899.99?
Click to expand...

Fury X should be compared to something like evga 980 ti hybrid at 750 dollars. If it is faster and/or cheaper at measurable degree and in stock soon I'll probably jump to amd. But if it is roughly the same price and same speed equally hard to get then I'm staying nvidia.
 
Thread title missing "few weeks" ;)

I wonder if 16th will be only a Fury annoucement or full launch with reviews. There's also rumors that only WC version is comming first and others will be launched later.
 
Tanquen said:
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Do you want a Fury that's almost as fast as a 980TI and $600 or do you want a Fury that's 10% faster than the 980 Ti and is $899.99?
Click to expand...

Just got really Hard
 
Said it in the other thread and will repeat it here: overclocking headroom will play a huge role in the decision for most enthusiasts. If Fury X equals Titan X at stock, Titan X (and 980 to for that matter) still has a shit ton of performance in reserve on the order of 10-15%. Also, for some of us 4k users, Fury X 4gb is out of the question anyways so who takes the performance lead is a bit moot.
 
harmattan said:
Said it in the other thread and will repeat it here: overclocking headroom will play a huge role in the decision for most enthusiasts. If Fury X equals Titan X at stock, Titan X (and 980 to for that matter) still has a shit ton of performance in reserve on the order of 10-15%. Also, for some of us 4k users, Fury X 4gb is out of the question anyways so who takes the performance lead is a bit moot.
Click to expand...

Yep, the OC models of 980 Ti alone should be able to take out Fury X if all it can muster is Titan X performance. Titan X owners have slightly higher OC potential than 980 Ti from what I've seen overall but I think the custom 980 Ti boards will close that gap a bit. Both my Titan X's hit 1500 MHz stable.
 
harmattan said:
Said it in the other thread and will repeat it here: overclocking headroom will play a huge role in the decision for most enthusiasts. If Fury X equals Titan X at stock, Titan X (and 980 to for that matter) still has a shit ton of performance in reserve on the order of 10-15%. Also, for some of us 4k users, Fury X 4gb is out of the question anyways so who takes the performance lead is a bit moot.
Click to expand...

I dont buy old obselete technology like Titanx or 980ti.
if I buy high end which is rarely I always buy the new technology.
HBM, small factor, bandwidth and while overclocking is a factor its not the primary one.

Fury by far is made for Dx12 and Nvidia made cards for dx11.
its a no brainer buy Fury today.
 
Araxie said:
based in GT-AP29 I think, so. 3000RPM.. far of being quiet..
Click to expand...

Won't matter, its not as if the Fury will be as hard to cool as a 295x2. I've got a Typhoon ap53 on the rad for my 295 and its a ton quieter than the piece of shit stock fan the card comes with. The 295x2 is like 450-500 watts give or take with Fury expected to be around 300. I'd be surprised if the fan needs to even spin up to half way to keep the card cool.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I would probably pop on a pair of 1900rpm fdb fans in push pull tbh.
Click to expand...

If it can overclock like a champ I might be interested. Problem is EVGA has a CLC 980TI coming out.....

I would LOVE a single card that can do most games at 4k60hz. I think only a massivly overclocked fury/980ti would do the job.

People need to realize. A CLC cooler on a video card does fucking wonders. It was the only way I was able to get my 780 lightning to 1400+ mhz on a single H55.....that is a cheap $50 CLC system.

Anyway looking forward to this review. Would be nice to see a review between Fury WCE and EVGA's 980ti CLC card.
 
Have there been any release date rumors or info or announcements from E3 regarding Fury's release date? From all the specs I've seen, Fury is personally the card I was excited for. HBM, high memory bandwidth, way more compute processors and shaders, etc.

The 390X with 8GB is sort of neat with going from '40' to '44' compute processors but going from 44 to a rumored 40 to 56 or 64 with Fury is a way better upgrade. As I primarily game at 1080p and dual monitor with a movie running on my other screen and might 'at most' engage in 1080p eyefinity someday, I'd be happy with a 4GB of HBM and can't imagine much pushing 8GB @ 1080p...for the next 5-6 years and would prefer more raw speed than raw ram.

So what's the release date rumors/info for Fury. Anything close or are we waiting another 6-9 months?
 
DASHlT said:
People need to realize. A CLC cooler on a video card does fucking wonders. It was the only way I was able to get my 780 lightning to 1400+ mhz on a single H55.....that is a cheap $50 CLC system.

Anyway looking forward to this review. Would be nice to see a review between Fury WCE and EVGA's 980ti CLC card.
Click to expand...

Truth. I've been a believer since first slapping a $50 Antec 620 + original $7 dwood bracket onto a GTX580. It felt like I'd fallen through a trapdoor and joined some secret club. From that moment on I knew I'd never waste time with custom loops again. The performance delta between CLC and custom was just no longer worth the time for a few extra degrees, not to mention $100-$150 for a full coverage block every time a new card came out.

That cooler then moved to a 680 -> 780 -> but then the MSI 970 Gaming 4G came along and finally brought the CLC fun to an end since I could hit max OC on air without breaking a sweat.

As for "single card that does most games at 4K60", I think we'll have to wait for Pascal, assuming most games includes the latest most demanding games.
 
lee0539 said:
so is it tomorrow they will release and have more benchmarks?
Click to expand...

Tomorrow is meant to be when its unveiled, whether that means its launched then and reviewers have already been sent cards to review is anyones guess.
 
My hope is that there will be non-WC'd versions of the top dog, barring any disturbingly high power consumption and heat output issues that seem to be a back-burner topic for AMD lately (I'm seeing guesstimates all over the web ranging from 300-375W for the Fury w/CLC).

The CLC killed any of AMDs hopes of the 295x2 (500W TDP) becoming a good seller before it even hit the market. How many consumers that don't identify as DIY'ers and/or enthusiasts can even install something like that? How many DIY're and/or enthusiasts will even want to mess around with routing and mounting a dedicated CLC for each one?

By putting a mandatory CLC on it, AMD is now only catering to a very small percentage (those with the bankroll to afford them, assuming they will be priced at a pretty penny) of a very small percentage (those that are willing to install or even have the chassis space for a CLC) of a very small percentage (enthusiasts) of the overall market.

And yes, I do realize there will surely be some air-cooler models of Fury, but will they be spec'd to perform at (or very near) the levels of the flagship without drawing enough power to make former Chernobyl workers nervous plus not getting hot enough to make global warming headlines? I hope so. For the sakes of competition, consumers, and AMD...I certainly hope so.
 
DejaWiz said:
My hope is that there will be non-WC'd versions of the top dog, barring any disturbingly high power consumption and heat output issues that seem to be a back-burner topic for AMD lately (I'm seeing guesstimates all over the web ranging from 300-375W for the Fury w/CLC).

The CLC killed any of AMDs hopes of the 295x2 (500W TDP) becoming a good seller before it even hit the market. How many consumers that don't identify as DIY'ers and/or enthusiasts can even install something like that? How many DIY're and/or enthusiasts will even want to mess around with routing and mounting a dedicated CLC for each one?

By putting a mandatory CLC on it, AMD is now only catering to a very small percentage (those with the bankroll to afford them, assuming they will be priced at a pretty penny) of a very small percentage (those that are willing to install or even have the chassis space for a CLC) of a very small percentage (enthusiasts) of the overall market.

And yes, I do realize there will surely be some air-cooler models of Fury, but will they be spec'd to perform at (or very near) the levels of the flagship without drawing enough power to make former Chernobyl workers nervous plus not getting hot enough to make global warming headlines? I hope so. For the sakes of competition, consumers, and AMD...I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

Just to address one thing: the 295x2 was released as a $1500 halo product. It was never intended to be a "good seller" as that niche is small. That said, the card still performs better than any other single-card solution right now.

Not sure why you imagine everyone is intimidated by a AIO cooler either...


As for your power and heat concerns, a mild underclock on a 290x makes it run vastly lower in heat and power use than what raised all the ruckus among the market. And the performance loss is minimal. Oh, and there are those AIB coolers that handle the 290x just fine.
 
So is this going to be another $1500 halo product? If not, then why carry over the "only meant to sell a handful" mentality of a halo product into the mainstream segments? It's completely counter-intuitive.

Intimidated by an AIO is one thing, but expecting everyone to magically have the desire to want them and/or chassis space for them is another...

Underclocking as a solution? Really? That's the best they can give us? "Here, let me actually put forth effort to intentionally cripple my expensive shit so it runs the way it should have out of the box." If it is such a viable solution, then why weren't they appropriately clocked to exhibit the lower power draw and heat output while performing nearly the same from the factory?
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
So is this going to be another $1500 halo product? If not, then why carry over the "only meant to sell a handful" mentality of a halo product into the mainstream segments? It's completely counter-intuitive.

Intimidated by an AIO is one thing, but expecting everyone to magically have the desire to want them and/or chassis space for them is another...

Underclocking as a solution? Really? That's the best they can give us? "Here, let me actually put forth effort to intentionally cripple my expensive shit so it runs the way it should have out of the box." if it is such a viable solution, then why weren't they underclocked to exhibit the lower power draw and heat output while performing nearly the same from the factory?
Click to expand...

It's not going to be $1500 unless people at AMD have completely lost it.

How are you managing with a case with no 120mm fan mounts? It's probably the most common thing on a case. Down to the NCase. You buy some other strange chassis, well, too bad. Although it's possible there will be an aircooled model.

Find some cheese to go along with the whine. It's unbelievably incessant these days regarding AMD. Every other post is a whiny, thinly veiled fanboy problem. If you're set on Nvidia, buy an Nvidia card. Otherwise, cut the crap and stop crying about how loud the fan is, or where you will possibly mount the rad, or how much heat it'll put off or how small the card is (really).
 
DPI said:
Truth. I've been a believer since first slapping a $50 Antec 620 + original $7 dwood bracket onto a GTX580. It felt like I'd fallen through a trapdoor and joined some secret club. From that moment on I knew I'd never waste time with custom loops again. The performance delta between CLC and custom was just no longer worth the time for a few extra degrees, not to mention $100-$150 for a full coverage block every time a new card came out.

That cooler then moved to a 680 -> 780 -> but then the MSI 970 Gaming 4G came along and finally brought the CLC fun to an end since I could hit max OC on air without breaking a sweat.

As for "single card that does most games at 4K60", I think we'll have to wait for Pascal, assuming most games includes the latest most demanding games.
Click to expand...

Still have 2 dwood brackets myself :) LOVED the concept so much so the guy sold his design to NZXT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top