AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4K Video Card Review @ [H]

Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...

Welcome to [H]. No one feelings are hurt, just a lot of us are disappointed with AMD showing of Fury X, its poor overclock performance results from TPU, its pricing, and maybe the AIO cooling. Most of us feel the $650 pricing is out of place when in the past AMD will usually price is cheaper than Nvidia.
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...

You're over a decade late to the debate, man. If I knew the links off hand I'd send you to the articles where [H] goes in depth about their review process and the exact details of why they test like do. What [H] does in reviews is show the highest playable settings for a game. This is important because it shows the reader about what they can expect to get in those games when buying a card. It isn't a traditional benchmark run like basically every other site uses. They play the actual games and get and real feel for how they play at those settings. If you want direct comparisons feature-wise that's why they have the apples-to-apples section for each game.

Of course the Fury X did better in Linus' test. Both cards were put in a cramped, warm, air-starved environment. Outside of spending ridiculous amounts on AIO cooled 980 Tis the FX better in those situations. I thought the video was interesting, but I can't say I was surprised by the results.

Outside of the usual suspects I don't see a lot of "hate" for AMD. There are a lot of people disappointed and depressed. A lot of us were expecting big things from this card and it just doesn't hit those marks. None of the cards AMD has released were bad they just weren't what they should have been and what a lot of us wanted them to be.
 
Hi Kyle!

Any plans to do some custom 980 ti reviews in the near future? It seems you guys have been doing a lot of AMD lately and some of the new 980 tis are performing at much higher levels than reference.
 
The cost of pushing the card an additional 3% using voltage tweaks is almost 150 watts!

Also, it would seem that Fury X is more bandwidth-limited than AMD press led us to believe. Otherwise you wouldn't expect the memory bump to have such a noticable effect on performance at clocks only 10% over stock.[/QUOTE]

here is a custom 980 ti crushing a Fury X and even a 295 in many cases.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84722-zotac-geforce-gtx-980-ti-amp-extreme/?page=11
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting this info but most people do have air conditioning, and those that don't will likely buy a window unit for a couple hundered dollars over a $600+ GPU.
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...
Where do you live that most people don't have air conditioning? Every first world country I've been to has had AC and I doubt people who can't afford AC are buying $600 GPUs.

The benchmarks that [H] runs ARE real-world benchmarks. The different settings reflect what the "best playable settings" each card was capable of. There are also apples-to-apples benchmarks at the same settings further on each page so I am not sure what your complaint is.
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...

Welcome to [H].
I highly recommend you read the following article by [H]ardOCP describing why they don't use benchmarks:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/02/11/benchmarking_benchmarks#.VbjcfaRVhBc
and why they test the way they do.
Bottom line, the information provided gives you a better whole-card performance metric to compare.
The first section of each page shows you the highest playable settings found. This tells you what kind of gaming experience you will have with that card compared to the competition. This, imho, is the most important metric, since who cares of your card gets 55 more frames per second at 680X480 with everything turned off? That provides no useful information. Knowing what levels of AA, SSAO and post-processing and branded trickery (hairworks, NVidia gameworks etc) a card can do on a graphics-intensive game is very useful.
The second section is what you are asking for: Apples to apples, where a set of demanding settings are chosen and the fps graph from real-world gameplay is provided. THis gives you a heads-up comparison between each card, as well as a great visual representation of gameplay smoothness.
 
CrisanT said:
Hello Hard forum, i am posting here for the first time.
What i see here is huge "hate" against AMD, sorry but that is my feeling. First, the weird decision to post results with cards having different game setings (there can be a chart of theese things, but for the normal user this wont help alot).
The real difference between FuryX and 980Ti is arround 10% (give or take). I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
And what else i can see, on the comentary side this time, the same people bashing on side or the other. The majority of AMD bashers, would not buy the FuryX not even if it would have 20% increased performance over the 980Ti, because thei act like pure fanboys.
Sorry if i hurt someones feeling :(
Click to expand...


No feelings hurt here.

There is no hate here. We gave an AMD card a Gold Award last week. If you check this page you will see that 3 of the last 4 video card awards we gave were to AMD based video cards. We simply do not think the Fury X is properly priced against the competition. And in most cases we review against similarly priced cards to show our readers the value of said products.

We do not "benchmark" video cards. We play games and show the results and share our opinions. Canned benchmarks are useless to us, and if those are of value to you, those sites are a dime a dozen. We show the real world benefits to gamers actually playing the games. We also do "Apples to Apples" testing in most reviews that use identical IQ settings. Reading our content actually requires reading to put it simply. It is not for that person that wants to just glance at a graph and move on.

I have not looked at Linus' content that you mention above. But it sounds to me that he put a water/radiator card in a closed environment and compared it to an air cooled card in the same environment. I suspect the air cool card throttled back? Not exactly rocket science reasoning there. If you feel as though that fits your needs, then great, but I don't see purposefully throttling a card then comparing the two "good" comparison data, except unless you were going to use a high end GPU in an air-starved case.

As for people and brand loyalties, you can make all the generalizations you want. Makes me no difference. We share our honest opinions and are brand agnostic when it comes to hardware reviews.
 
Good review as always, really looking forward to seeing CrossFire reviews from [H].

supermodelthriller said:
From around I-80 and North you would be surprised how many people don't have air conditioning.
Click to expand...

CrisanT said:
I would love to see som real world benchmarks like taking into account that everyone is using the PC in a closed case and the majority of people dont have Air Con in their house/apartment. LinusTech did just that in a mini ITx case, and the result, are well, a bit surprising.
Click to expand...

As someone who lives north of I-80 I can say I know zero people who do not have some form of AC.

You can literally buy a new in window unit for 150-200 bucks.

I have three window units in my basement if you want to buy one.

Also this is a report from 2009 about the number of homes in the US that have AC.

http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-conditioning.cfm

Look at Table 1 and tell me again that "many" people don't have AC.
 
Last edited:
Please take the geographic air conditioner talk elsewhere.
 
madgun said:
I completely agree with that.

When the 290X first came out and outdid the first Titan in AMD sponsored games, the point of Bias wasnt raised by NVidia fanboys. [H] was never accused in any capacity. Bio shock, tomb raider etc were all AMD sponsored games but showcased the tech at the time and were the rightful set of games to be chosen for comparisons.

Why now are things different when FuryX is handily beaten at the high end. The self righteous AMD brigade comes in and starts accusations as if it would get the performance crown back for the FuryX.

Bear in mind even. 10% performance delta matters at the high end. That is the section where brands get segregated. If this difference is within the midrange lineup no one would really care. To make matters worst people generally buying the high end know about overclocking, good air flows etc, so they can easily squeeze out the extra 25% performance from the 980 Ti without even sneezing.
Click to expand...

Back in the 7890 days there were a lot of people bitching about [H] supposedly being bias towards AMD. It got a lot worse when Kyle fell head-over-heels for Eyefinity and worked with AMD to show it off to people. A lot of threads about Eyefinity had people bitching and moaning about bias and it got worse when Nvidia Surround first came out and was by far the inferior solution.
 
Crisium said:
"Unfortunately, HBM is not the saving grace of the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X that propels it forward in 4K gaming currently. It is held back by capacity and performance."

Where's your evidence of this "capacity" limitations thus far?

It appears you enter with the preconceived notion that 4GB is holding back the Fury, but never demonstrate so. BF4 shows your preconceptions.

"Lowering settings by disabling MSAA, trying to give the Fury X the best chance it can get"

Why would disabling MSAA give the Fury X the best chance? If anything, more MSAA would help the Fury X as it tends to do better at higher resolutions due to AMD drivers and its memory bandwidth advantage. And, sure enough, the gap between the Fury X and 980 Ti is smaller with MSAA than without. Yet you felt no MSAA gave it the best chance...? I'm guessing this is because you think it is running out of memory.
Click to expand...

I'll have whatever is in his koolaid to go please. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top