AMD Radeon R9 Fury X CrossFire at 4K Review @ [H]

OC'd Fury X is like 5% faster than the HardOCP benchmarks.

OC'd 980Ti/Titan X is like 15-18% faster than HardOCP benchmarks, under water with custom BIOS/voltage tweaks it can get it up 30+% faster.
 
dragonageinquisition said:
OC'd Fury X is like 5% faster than the HardOCP benchmarks.

OC'd 980Ti/Titan X is like 15-18% faster than HardOCP benchmarks, under water with custom BIOS/voltage tweaks it can get it up 30+% faster.
Click to expand...

Adding the cost of a water system to get that 980 Ti to be 30% faster would most likely just cause the Fury X to win in terms of value. It's been awhile since I've been on the WC scene....but a GPU water block is like $100 bucks. Assuming you've already got a loop, extra tubing, fittings, and coolant, that's still $200 your gonna pay for a pair of water blocks.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Adding the cost of a water system to get that 980 Ti to be 30% faster would most likely just cause the Fury X to win in terms of value. It's been awhile since I've been on the WC scene....but a GPU water block is like $100 bucks. Assuming you've already got a loop, extra tubing, fittings, and coolant, that's still $200 your gonna pay for a pair of water blocks.
Click to expand...

Helps to do the maths.
15% extra cost for the cooler vs 30% higher performance.
Knock approx 5% off for clocking the Fury.
Still leaves around 10% better value if you consider value directly equates to performance.
When you consider highest performance usually costs a lot more, its even better value.
 
Depends.

MSI just released a Hybrid cooling version of 980ti (Sea hawk) that is priced at roughly the same price as a Fury X (at least they are in Taiwan).

No reviews I am aware of are out for the Sea Hawk though.
 
Pst.. Pst.. The 'added value' of watercooling is subjective, and cannot be quantified, and some would argue that it is indicative of a card with disproportionately high power draw... Not to mention the Fury X is not available without watercooling, thus it cannot be equated as 'added value' because there is no dry version of the Fury X to compare to: The Fury X's watercooling is 'stock cooling'. 980 Ti beats the Fury X stock versus Stock.
 
It's a shame to come back after having left years ago due to [H] having sold out to NVidia, only to see that they still are sold out. Never having a single good thing to say about anything from super-small underdog AMD. This is why I have and will continue to boycott [H] for more unbiased and respectable review sites. Thank you [H] though for having helped to make me a hardware enthusiast in the first place, it's just a shame to see so much negativity and nay saying against a company that for the first time in a while actually created something great and innovative giving NVidia some good competition again. I like NVidia and have one in my system, so it's not like I'm biased too, but I can see it when I read it. I also like Intel, but Zen does seem like it could be really interesting. Time will tell. I'll be back to read and criticize (if applicable) your review on that then.
 
MLSCrow said:
It's a shame to come back after having left years ago due to [H] having sold out to NVidia, only to see that they still are sold out. Never having a single good thing to say about anything from super-small underdog AMD. This is why I have and will continue to boycott [H] for more unbiased and respectable review sites. Thank you [H] though for having helped to make me a hardware enthusiast in the first place, it's just a shame to see so much negativity and nay saying against a company that for the first time in a while actually created something great and innovative giving NVidia some good competition again. I like NVidia and have one in my system, so it's not like I'm biased too, but I can see it when I read it. I also like Intel, but Zen does seem like it could be really interesting. Time will tell. I'll be back to read and criticize (if applicable) your review on that then.
Click to expand...

Read
the
review

Credit was given where it was due.

Fighting for the underdog is one thing.
Irrational criticism is another.

The bias is from you.
 
MLSCrow said:
It's a shame to come back after having left years ago due to [H] having sold out to NVidia, only to see that they still are sold out. Never having a single good thing to say about anything from super-small underdog AMD. This is why I have and will continue to boycott [H] for more unbiased and respectable review sites. Thank you [H] though for having helped to make me a hardware enthusiast in the first place, it's just a shame to see so much negativity and nay saying against a company that for the first time in a while actually created something great and innovative giving NVidia some good competition again. I like NVidia and have one in my system, so it's not like I'm biased too, but I can see it when I read it. I also like Intel, but Zen does seem like it could be really interesting. Time will tell. I'll be back to read and criticize (if applicable) your review on that then.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its such a shame AMD's numbers don't match up to Nvidia's, and that CFX drivers are causing issues. I see that this is [H]'s fault entirely. Its also [H]'s fault that the numbers don't add up on other websites as well...
 
Any plans to do Tri/Quad followups similar to those done for 290X/295X2, or will those have to wait for whenever Fury X2 releases?
 
MLSCrow said:
It's a shame to come back after having left years ago due to [H] having sold out to NVidia, only to see that they still are sold out. Never having a single good thing to say about anything from super-small underdog AMD. This is why I have and will continue to boycott [H] for more unbiased and respectable review sites. Thank you [H] though for having helped to make me a hardware enthusiast in the first place, it's just a shame to see so much negativity and nay saying against a company that for the first time in a while actually created something great and innovative giving NVidia some good competition again. I like NVidia and have one in my system, so it's not like I'm biased too, but I can see it when I read it. I also like Intel, but Zen does seem like it could be really interesting. Time will tell. I'll be back to read and criticize (if applicable) your review on that then.
Click to expand...

AMD's Crossfire support has been shit since they introduced it. By unbiased obviously you mean you want [H] to lie about how the games perform and pretend everything is amazing just because they are the underdog. [H] praised the hardware and how well it works when AMD's drivers aren't getting in the way. Just because AMD is the underdog does not mean that they are free from criticism and it does not mean their major issues shouldn't be thrown in their face until they fix them.
 
Xinmosni said:
Any plans to do Tri/Quad followups similar to those done for 290X/295X2, or will those have to wait for whenever Fury X2 releases?
Click to expand...

Prob a FuryX2 release. That is how I ended up with my setup...from the [H] review.
 
MLSCrow said:
It's a shame to come back after having left years ago due to [H] having sold out to NVidia, only to see that they still are sold out. Never having a single good thing to say about anything from super-small underdog AMD. This is why I have and will continue to boycott [H] for more unbiased and respectable review sites. Thank you [H] though for having helped to make me a hardware enthusiast in the first place, it's just a shame to see so much negativity and nay saying against a company that for the first time in a while actually created something great and innovative giving NVidia some good competition again. I like NVidia and have one in my system, so it's not like I'm biased too, but I can see it when I read it. I also like Intel, but Zen does seem like it could be really interesting. Time will tell. I'll be back to read and criticize (if applicable) your review on that then.
Click to expand...
lol did you read the review since now I am curious.
 
marzzez said:
May be off topic but how many/much of the Pcie lanes do these cards use or really need?
Click to expand...

I asked AMD this and the official response was:

Amdmatt @ amd forums says;

You will have no issues running 2x Fury X on either X16 or X8 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. In addition, you will be fine using X16 or X8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes. More bandwidth is of course always better, but the differences are still small.

If you're going to be gaming at 4K or higher, then X8 PCI-E 3.0 - X16 PCI-E 2.0 as a minimum makes sense, otherwise you'll be fine with PCI-E 2.0 X8.
Click to expand...

TLDR: 4k Fury X wants PCI-E 3.0 X8 at minimum.
 
Nenu said:
Helps to do the maths.
15% extra cost for the cooler vs 30% higher performance.
Knock approx 5% off for clocking the Fury.
Still leaves around 10% better value if you consider value directly equates to performance.
When you consider highest performance usually costs a lot more, its even better value.
Click to expand...

My take on this is that if you are now considering 4k gaming, chances are you also need to get a new 4k monitor. Here in Europe, I have a number of choices when it comes to 4K FreeSync monitors but for G-Sync there is only one TN monitor available, unfortunately.

You may or may not see that as a problem but I think it's safe to assume that you are more likely to find a 4K FreeSync display you like than a G-Sync one and, following that line of thought, you are more likely to end up with a FreeSync monitor when you have a Crossfire setup compared to getting a G-Sync monitor when you have SLI (again, this is for 4K only).

I'm genuinely interested which of the two will serve you better in the end; will the added performance of overclocked 980TIs beat having an adaptive sync display - or not?

I wonder if someone could put that to the test at some point.
 
Nenu said:
Helps to do the maths.
15% extra cost for the cooler vs 30% higher performance.
Knock approx 5% off for clocking the Fury.
Still leaves around 10% better value if you consider value directly equates to performance.
Click to expand...

Doing 'maths' with percentages can get tricky. Adding 15% then subtracting 5% of the new total does not equal 10% than the original. eg, 100 + 15% = 115. 115- 5% = 109.25
Don't get sucked into the "what if the 980ti had water" argument. It is about the last hope for Fury lovers to "even the odds."
 
FSRedWing said:
My take on this is that if you are now considering 4k gaming, chances are you also need to get a new 4k monitor. Here in Europe, I have a number of choices when it comes to 4K FreeSync monitors but for G-Sync there is only one TN monitor available, unfortunately.

You may or may not see that as a problem but I think it's safe to assume that you are more likely to find a 4K FreeSync display you like than a G-Sync one and, following that line of thought, you are more likely to end up with a FreeSync monitor when you have a Crossfire setup compared to getting a G-Sync monitor when you have SLI (again, this is for 4K only).

I'm genuinely interested which of the two will serve you better in the end; will the added performance of overclocked 980TIs beat having an adaptive sync display - or not?

I wonder if someone could put that to the test at some point.
Click to expand...
Freesync/Gsync dont bother me.
Its a technology still in its infancy.
I prefer to maintain 60fps or as close as possible, thats why I'm staying with a 1080p projector that really is awesome and way cheaper/easier to utilise.
Freesync or Gsync wont give me any benefit,

I will do the same when I eventually go 4K.
The cost of 4K gaming is too high and there are too many issues.
I've tried dual card and it was a major flop, I hear the same complaints still.

And the only AMD card I had that didnt have major driver issues was an X1800.
Since then I've struggled to enjoy the cards I owned and ended up being forced to sell my 290x because AMD left very basic bugs in the driver, I had enough after 1.5 years with no fix.
Its not that I wont consider AMD cards again, its that I'm waiting until I see they have their act together.

Until the technologies mature enough and arent mentally expensive for the quality I like, I'll happily stick with 1080p at 60fps :)
 
Last edited:
Nihilus1 said:
Doing 'maths' with percentages can get tricky. Adding 15% then subtracting 5% of the new total does not equal 10% than the original. eg, 100 + 15% = 115. 115- 5% = 109.25
Don't get sucked into the "what if the 980ti had water" argument. It is about the last hope for Fury lovers to "even the odds."
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, for all intents and purposes the Fury X is a failure for AMD. It's Nvidia's turn in the limelight for this generation and possibly the next. This is the way its been, and should be, with companies trading places every few years.

I just think the 'what if the 980ti had water' argument is a slippery slope if you're looking at it from a value perspective. Watercooling is expensive, especially if you're starting from scratch.

Then again, this is a review for CF/SLI solutions for 4K gaming....so it's for people that have a money tree or two in their backyard.
 
while you nvidia fanboys are compaining and fighting , im enjoying my upgrade from 980ti to Fury X, and 4k 42inch freesync monitor :)
 
Just curious, Brent and Kyle, I took a step away from [H] for a while because I couldn't afford to do any upgrades and my life was crazy in other directions. Somewhere in there it seems the focus shifted away from what GPUs could do with 3-way surround setups.


That's cool with me because I never could have invested 3x the cash in any one part of a rig anyway, but I remember that there was intense interest in how well any single-or-multi-card solution could drive multiple monitors. Just curious as to your thoughts on the way the market changed somewhere in there.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Don't get me wrong, for all intents and purposes the Fury X is a failure for AMD. It's Nvidia's turn in the limelight for this generation and possibly the next. This is the way its been, and should be, with companies trading places every few years.

I just think the 'what if the 980ti had water' argument is a slippery slope if you're looking at it from a value perspective. Watercooling is expensive, especially if you're starting from scratch.

Then again, this is a review for CF/SLI solutions for 4K gaming....so it's for people that have a money tree or two in their backyard.
Click to expand...

"'What if the 980ti had water'"

http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=06G-P4-1996-KR

$749 with a hybrid cooler. So you can choose the Fury X at $649 or 980ti at $749 (and OC it to the moon) if you are into AIOs. Personally I love AIOs, especially for multiGPU. The value is similar there IMO.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Don't get me wrong, for all intents and purposes the Fury X is a failure for AMD. It's Nvidia's turn in the limelight for this generation and possibly the next. This is the way its been, and should be, with companies trading places every few years.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can make that statement. There are games where 390x is hanging with the 980ti for vastly less money. There are games where the air cooled Fury hangs with the 980Ti for less money. I'll admit AMD doesn't have a "killer" card that destroys all the things but to say the product is a failure shows nothing but bias on your part.
 
OFaceSIG said:
I don't know how you can make that statement. There are games where 390x is hanging with the 980ti for vastly less money. There are games where the air cooled Fury hangs with the 980Ti for less money. I'll admit AMD doesn't have a "killer" card that destroys all the things but to say the product is a failure shows nothing but bias on your part.
Click to expand...

lol jeez, one post they're alluding that I'm an AMD fanboy, the next post i'm labeled an Nvidia fanboy....

I have pulled away a lot from the enthusiast crowd and my opinion is based on what I read on [H] so maybe I'm a bit uninformed.

There, I have now apologized to people on both sides of the fence, time to be ostracized by both sides in 3....2....1....
 
Dayaks said:
"'What if the 980ti had water'"

http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=06G-P4-1996-KR

$749 with a hybrid cooler. So you can choose the Fury X at $649 or 980ti at $749 (and OC it to the moon) if you are into AIOs. Personally I love AIOs, especially for multiGPU. The value is similar there IMO.
Click to expand...
Hybrids have been 729 on Amazon for almost 20 days. Not sure if in stock now but 729 seemed like a fantastic price. It is 709 at newegg right now. Add in a 60 dollar game and you are essentially getting the Hybrid for 649 at the egg right now.
 
Last edited:
Commander Suzdal said:
Just curious, Brent and Kyle, I took a step away from [H] for a while because I couldn't afford to do any upgrades and my life was crazy in other directions. Somewhere in there it seems the focus shifted away from what GPUs could do with 3-way surround setups.


That's cool with me because I never could have invested 3x the cash in any one part of a rig anyway, but I remember that there was intense interest in how well any single-or-multi-card solution could drive multiple monitors. Just curious as to your thoughts on the way the market changed somewhere in there.
Click to expand...

I'm not Kyle or Brent, but I will chime in here. I hated bezels. I hated the look of debezeled monitors in surround. I just didn't feel like the surround was the way I wanted to play games. Now I have a curved, 4k 40" screen. I get the immersion of a surround setup, with a single large screen and I really like it.

I think that's probably why the focus has shifted. You see less surround setups because there are reasonably viable large format 4k curved displays now that compete in the same niche.
 
SilverSliver said:
I'm not Kyle or Brent, but I will chime in here. I hated bezels. I hated the look of debezeled monitors in surround. I just didn't feel like the surround was the way I wanted to play games. Now I have a curved, 4k 40" screen. I get the immersion of a surround setup, with a single large screen and I really like it.

I think that's probably why the focus has shifted. You see less surround setups because there are reasonably viable large format 4k curved displays now that compete in the same niche.
Click to expand...


Great answer, you actually cleared up two-for-one for me there! Because my other wonder was, "4K, 4K, 4K, why is everything about 4K now?!?!"


Seems like the answer is that 4K gives close to the res of the old surround setups without the hassle of multiple monitors, which explains both the demise of surround and the "obsession" with 4K.


Interesting how new tech shifts the focus in unexpected directions, isn't it? :cool:
 
It's not so much 4K that is replacing Eyefinity/Surround, but Large Format 4K. The affordability of 40"+ 4K monitors has replaced many multi-monitor setups, mine included.

I was actually thinking of going 3x 40" 4K just to see how I like it, but with how shitty PC games have been these past couple years (almost all the good ones being mere console ports -_-), there's less incentive to push PC hardware anymore except for ePeen...
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Great answer, you actually cleared up two-for-one for me there! Because my other wonder was, "4K, 4K, 4K, why is everything about 4K now?!?!"


Seems like the answer is that 4K gives close to the res of the old surround setups without the hassle of multiple monitors, which explains both the demise of surround and the "obsession" with 4K.


Interesting how new tech shifts the focus in unexpected directions, isn't it? :cool:
Click to expand...

Xinmosni said:
It's not so much 4K that is replacing Eyefinity/Surround, but Large Format 4K. The affordability of 40"+ 4K monitors has replaced many multi-monitor setups, mine included.

I was actually thinking of going 3x 40" 4K just to see how I like it, but with how shitty PC games have been these past couple years (almost all the good ones being mere console ports -_-), there's less incentive to push PC hardware anymore except for ePeen...
Click to expand...

Also, don't confuse 4k in computing with 4k in television. A 4k monitor can immediately be used to its full potential in computing without waiting for content production as is the case with 4k in television. 4k television is still quite a few years away from being a worthwhile investment.

Side Topic/rant/opinion:
TV manufacturers pushed out too many new technologies over too short of a time period, in my opinion, and overwhelmed the consumer. We had television tech that stayed, for the most part, the same for half a century and then consumers were hit with HD lite, full HD, 'Smart' TV, 3D (Though this has come and gone over the decades), UHD, and curved display tech in the span of....10-15 years.
 
N4CR said:
I asked AMD this and the official response was:

Amdmatt @ amd forums says;



TLDR: 4k Fury X wants PCI-E 3.0 X8 at minimum.
Click to expand...

Thank you, been brainstorming a bit for a viable solution that includes these cards mainly because I want amd/ati to stick around.
 
OFaceSIG said:
I don't know how you can make that statement. There are games where 390x is hanging with the 980ti for vastly less money. There are games where the air cooled Fury hangs with the 980Ti for less money. I'll admit AMD doesn't have a "killer" card that destroys all the things but to say the product is a failure shows nothing but bias on your part.
Click to expand...

He never mentioned anything about the 390x or the regular Fury. His quote was about the Fury X. Way to come out of left field and call USMC a fanboy. It is a failure - less sales, slightly more power consumption, less vram, no hdmi 2.0, lower performance at the same price. Deal with it.
The only thing where it beats the 980ti is in scaling for certain games. This will be important to about 1% of PC gamers who spend $1300 on gpu hardware.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Just curious, Brent and Kyle, I took a step away from [H] for a while because I couldn't afford to do any upgrades and my life was crazy in other directions. Somewhere in there it seems the focus shifted away from what GPUs could do with 3-way surround setups.


That's cool with me because I never could have invested 3x the cash in any one part of a rig anyway, but I remember that there was intense interest in how well any single-or-multi-card solution could drive multiple monitors. Just curious as to your thoughts on the way the market changed somewhere in there.
Click to expand...

Simply put a 4K resolution of 3840x2160 (8.2 million pixels) renders about 1.3 million more pixels than 5760x1200 (6.9 million pixels). What is playable at 4K is also playable at 5720x1200 surround so you can figure that out. 4K is more graphically intense and a better challenging GPU oriented resolution to test at. Since it is a standard 16:9 ratio and natural progression from the "standard" 1080p and 1440p, it makes sense to focus on, it is being accepted as the standard for above 1440p gaming. The popular curved 21:9 format is 3440x1440 (4.9 million pixels) so 4K is still the more challenging resolution. It is where the market has chosen to go, and it won't be the last stop on this tour.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Great answer, you actually cleared up two-for-one for me there! Because my other wonder was, "4K, 4K, 4K, why is everything about 4K now?!?!"


Seems like the answer is that 4K gives close to the res of the old surround setups without the hassle of multiple monitors, which explains both the demise of surround and the "obsession" with 4K.


Interesting how new tech shifts the focus in unexpected directions, isn't it? :cool:
Click to expand...

4K isn't even really 4K, I think 4096 × 2304 (9.4 million pixels)
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Just curious, Brent and Kyle, I took a step away from [H] for a while because I couldn't afford to do any upgrades and my life was crazy in other directions. Somewhere in there it seems the focus shifted away from what GPUs could do with 3-way surround setups.


That's cool with me because I never could have invested 3x the cash in any one part of a rig anyway, but I remember that there was intense interest in how well any single-or-multi-card solution could drive multiple monitors. Just curious as to your thoughts on the way the market changed somewhere in there.
Click to expand...

My Eyefinity/Surround setup was sold off this morning. :)

JS9000_First_Setup.jpg


Eyefinity and Surround are quickly becoming things of the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top