DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,825
Did I hear right; the Fury X averages 275w and can cool up to 500 watts, and OC friendly?!
I've read 300-375W. Anyone know if that is a confirmed change?
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.
Did I hear right; the Fury X averages 275w and can cool up to 500 watts, and OC friendly?!
False. June 24th Fury X, July 14th Fury Pro. Nano is later.
I've read 300-375W. Anyone know if that is a confirmed change?
AMD themselves said it burns 275W at the most during the live stream.
That remains to be seen. July 14th will be the day that I decide to move off my 780s back to Radeon products or I continue to wait.
I will wait if vanilla Fury isn't better than the 980 in my three key requirements: 1.) performance, 2.) lower power draw, and 3.) lower heat output. If it is to be priced at $550, then the extra $50 over current 980 pricing better translate to wins in all three metrics.
At the beginning of the stream, Lisa Su also said that the Fury X was running Tomb Raider at 60 fps at 4k. The Titan X averages 40 fps in that game. That's about the best we have in terms of performance #$'s right now.
At the beginning of the stream, Lisa Su also said that the Fury X was running Tomb Raider at 60 fps at 4k. The Titan X averages 40 fps in that game. That's about the best we have in terms of performance #$'s right now.
At the beginning of the stream, Lisa Su also said that the Fury X was running Tomb Raider at 60 fps at 4k. The Titan X averages 40 fps in that game. That's about the best we have in terms of performance #$'s right now.
At the beginning of the stream, Lisa Su also said that the Fury X was running Tomb Raider at 60 fps at 4k. The Titan X averages 40 fps in that game. That's about the best we have in terms of performance #$'s right now.
I've read 300-375W. Anyone know if that is a confirmed change?
PCPER said:AMD's Joe Macri said on stage that the cooler they designed is built for up to 500 watts but that the board was only going to draw 275 watts, while keeping the board temperature down to 50C!
What about the air cooled fury X? Is that going to just be the Fury Pro, with the Fury X being WC only? Are those dates actual release dates into stores to buy? There is no mention of air cooled fury X pricing so maybe the Fury X is WC only and the Fury Pro is the air cooled version?
AMD themselves said it burns 275W at the most during the live stream.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-...nces-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-and-Fury-Graphics-Cards
PCPER said:AMD's Joe Macri said on stage that the cooler they designed is built for up to 500 watts but that the board was only going to draw 275 watts, while keeping the board temperature down to 50C!
From here: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/83819-evga-geforce-gtx-980-ti-superclocked-acx-20/?page=8
Tomb Raider on a EVGA 980Ti SC+ averages 63 fps in 4K
The fury X was at 60fps in 4K or was it 70fps in 4K. I thought she said it was 70 and Sniper elite 3 was running 45 fps in 5K. Either way those aren't bad numbers as a initial comparison, but still I want to know performance @ 4K with a high VRAM game like GTAV.
My question is. I know the guru3d benchmark does not have tressfx enabled.
Does the Hexus review?
I think if you enable it then possibly titan X or 980ti cannot do 60fps?
Yes, I am very glad since I just sold off my custom water loop parts (too much hassle). Best info so far!
AMD themselves said it burns 275W at the most during the live stream.
I can confirm I heard him say that too. At 50*C.....
The numbers aren't bad, but they give no compelling reason to get the Fury over the 980ti. As much hype they kept doing on 4k, I would expect and need to see a 25%+ increase over the ti to justify losing 2GB of VRAM.
Why, it's not 2GB of GDDR5 for both cards
Along with the 970 gets glowing recommendations.
But if you want to worry about that then the 390X > 980TI by leaps and bounds, extra 2GB for $100 less
Doesnt matter, since we dont know the settings AMD used on the Fiji cards, so there is no base for comparison.
True but you can estimate a ballpark if you are considering a 980Ti vs Fury X. Personally I am not sure yet myself. I am still leaning towards a 980Ti Hybrid even if it is $100 more just because of the Gameworks situation. I don't want to wait 2 weeks after release to play the game without an AMD speed penalty. Yeah that isn't really fair, but that is the reality of a good portion of the game releases so it has to factor in my decision.Doesnt matter, since we dont know the settings AMD used on the Fiji cards, so there is no base for comparison.
Fury is 550$, woooo
Can't even use either of my monitors with it, but this will hopefully help AMD stay competitive
Very good point, but I can tell you right now Tressfx was enabled. So right there I Can tell you the guru3d and hexus benchmarks (if they didn't use tressfx) aren't reliable either.
If AMD used full settings, it might be something in it that they talked about doing with memory usage. One screen was 4K with Tomb Raider, while the other a 5K screen with Sniper Elite 3. One of the slides showed a lot of games, including Shadow of Mordor in UltraHD 4K. Thats a game that can make 4GB GPUs nervous.
If the 3D Mark results are correct, then it shows that 4GB is fine for these cards up to 4k, but not beyond. That is fine for this generation of cards considering that 4K isn't even the mainstream yet.Why isn't fury and fury-x at least 6gb?
So the 390x is basically a 980 for $120 cheaper. Lol I smell a 980 price drop as well.most interesting thing there imo is the 290x to 390x performance jump
If the 3D Mark results are correct, then it shows that 4GB is fine for these cards up to 4k, but not beyond. That is fine for this generation of cards considering that 4K isn't even the mainstream yet.