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

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,042
My biggest problem with this card was the insane amount of hype by AMD about it; they made it sound like the seconding coming of Jesus. The general buzz was +30% by AMD fans, +10% by nVidia fans, and about +20% by people who didn't have one camp or another in the mind. The fact it didn't even hit +0% compared to the 980ti...that is the "thud".

It isn't a bad priced card...and it isn't a bad card...it is just sort of "there". However, this will cause AMD to sell of a ton of their 290 series. :D
 

w00t69

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
337
I can't believe the VRM's have a copper pipe with liquid coolant running over the top of them still hitting over 100C at stock clockspeeds.
 

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,923
That's what their hopefully doing with the non-X furry without the aio. Can't be too gimped though.

To the post above I have no problem with Gameworks, it's just most Gameworks games tend to be buggy as hell. Not just on AMD cards but Nvidia cards too! Blame it on Gameworks or not but if I was Nvidia I wouldn't want to be associated with these titles, the new Barman being a prime example. Comes bundled with their cards and is a POS, and people are likely to test their new cards with this game!
Releasing a card of same architecture after 2 years with slight bump in the clock speed, and yet its lagging behind an year old gtx 980 with double the power consumption? One of the worst thing AMD has ever produced.

NVidia's fermi too was in the same league. GTX 480 was power hungry heater with marginal better speed than 5870. But nVidia made some refinement with the existing fermi architecture, and released 580 which was faster than its predecessor with less power consumption and less heat.

AMD didn't even refined its existing architecture and released a card, which consumes more power than 290x. These cards shouldn't have come at first place.

Fury X is a good card and I believe with slight bump with the new drivers, it might perform as good as 980ti. So if AMD price it on par with 980, it will not only make customers happy, but might result in a record sales for AMD thus overcoming their debit.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,680
i don't get all this negativity! this is a very well performing card but i has one issue, Price! they will drop it price and will become very, very attractive and with better drivers the performance will increase substantially. i personally don't see it as gloomy as you guys do...
You just answered your own question.

Perception is everything. The way the human brain works is that it if encounters something negative, any other quality doesn't matter. Example, long blonde hair, pretty face, big boobs oh, and her teeth are rotted out. You're not going to take her home. Now, you might go over to her trailer after 10pm, run a few benchmarks but your not going to spend $650 on her.

Now, if she suddenly came up with the $550 to fix her teeth, well hell, we have a winner.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
I can't believe the VRM's have a copper pipe with liquid coolant running over the top of them still hitting over 100C at stock clockspeeds.
TH put a thermal scanner on the card and looked at the PCIe connection which was close to 100C

And yes the VRMS are part of the heat block.

TH said:
Almost 90 °C at the motherboard slot indicates that the VRM pins have passed 100 °C. This certainly isn’t a great way to run the card long-term, but then again, stress tests aren’t an everyday usage scenario. Still, it would have been nice to see some reserves for overclocking.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
I just hope to god it overclocks to hell. It will be AMD's only saving grace. But the thermals on the VRM are not looking good running at over 100C
You do realized its already stated this card can only OC 100mhz, and is voltage locked. It was so not worth it, they didnt even put a section in the review.
 

Kranium

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
432
Looking at this I'd be interested in the nano for a little gaming on my htpc, but the lack of HDMI 2.0 is a real killer, I plan to have a 4k tv within the next two years and I would want any gpu purchase for a htpc to last closer to 3, hell I am using a 560ti in there right now.

The Fury looks like a card that is 6-12months late. If this had come out last summer it would have made a killing.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
You do realized its already stated this card can only OC 100mhz, and is voltage locked. It was so not worth it, they didnt even put a section in the review.
The only reason it's locked is because the drivers don't enable it....for now. AMD kept bragging about headroom for overclockability. This might have been more talking out of the side of their mouth, but I can't imagine they would sit there and brag about something that wasn't available.
 

Flopper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,642
Have to disagree; Gameworks is a HUGE issue of which AMD is just a relatively small factor. To properly address the damage Gameworks is doing in the gaming industry we would have to compare performance of Gameworks modified code vs. non-modified code; which cannot be easily done objectively nor without legal consequences from Nvidia.
software crap.
Needs to die.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,037
^ thanks for totally missing the point it's new tech and it almost performs as good as.
But at the same price point? It took WC to get there, and it still loses in every critical metric important to enthusiasts save for operating temperature.

When I'm staring at a shelf with only the 980ti and Fury X on it, should i spend the same price on "new tech", even though "it almost performs as good as"?

Hell no.

I want the most bang for the buck. That leaves the Fury X still in the shrink wrap collecting dust.

I said it before and I'll say it again: the AIO is going to be a crippling point for the Fury X. The majority doesn't want to make (or even have) the space for dedicated GPU radiators in their chassis. This is a niche/halo product being pushed as a mainstream flagship, and it's going to backfire badly. And that is aside from the fact it can't even hang with the competitors mainstream flagship, let alone their niche/halo offering.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Have to disagree; Gameworks is a HUGE issue of which AMD is just a relatively small factor. To properly address the damage Gameworks is doing in the gaming industry we would have to compare performance of Gameworks modified code vs. non-modified code; which cannot be easily done objectively nor without legal consequences from Nvidia.
Basically, anyone who has their finger on GameWorks as the blame want us to not use games to evaluate performance of these video cards because they have GW 3D effects the developer has chosen to use in their games.

You know how ridiculous that is?

If you don't want to see how games perform between video cards, then what the heck are you buying your video cards to do ?

I really don't get it. The only way to find out the kind of gameplay experience a video card delivers in games, is well, to use those games. Theoretical benchmarks aint gonna tell you how Batman performs, the only way to find out how Batman performs on video cards, is to test Batman.

Maybe I'm thinking with too much common sense.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
690
Looking at this I'd be interested in the nano for a little gaming on my htpc, but the lack of HDMI 2.0 is a real killer, I plan to have a 4k tv within the next two years and I would want any gpu purchase for a htpc to last closer to 3, hell I am using a 560ti in there right now.

The Fury looks like a card that is 6-12months late. If this had come out last summer it would have made a killing.
Should wait for 4k tvs with DisplayPort 1.3 since it can do 4k@120Hz, you know because future proof has been the massive argument so far.
 

runs2far

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
915
I can't believe the VRM's have a copper pipe with liquid coolant running over the top of them still hitting over 100C at stock clockspeeds.
Source?

I think it looks like a fine card, it may not kick the 980 TI to the curb, but at the same price as a 980TI, you get great 1440p performance and a good closed loop cooler.

Had AMD launched it with an air cooler, the price would have to be ~10% lower.

Luckily I can write whatever I want, as I have never considered buying such an expensive card.

EDIT:

Never mind, THG is the source.
 
Last edited:

tonyftw

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,817
It looks like there might be a row of VRMs on the back side of the card.

Since they're just shrouded by a backplate, no surprise they're getting to 100C.
No thermal pads on the backplate either. Looks like it's there just for aesthetics.
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,211
No thermal pads on the backplate either. Looks like it's there just for aesthetics.
Exactly. It's not a cooling feature. It's just a shroud...which would impede airflow and keep the components on the back even hotter.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,257
But at the same price point? It took WC to get there, and it still loses in every critical metric important to enthusiasts save for operating temperature.

When I'm staring at a shelf with only the 980ti and Fury X on it, should i spend the same price on "new tech", even though "it almost performs as good as"?

Hell no.

I want the most bang for the buck. That leaves the Fury X still in the shrink wrap collecting dust.

I said it before and I'll say it again: the AIO is going to be a crippling point for the Fury X. The majority doesn't want to make (or even have) the space for dedicated GPU radiators in their chassis. This is a niche/halo product being pushed as a mainstream flagship, and it's going to backfire badly. And that is aside from the fact it can't even hang with the competitors mainstream flagship, let alone their niche/halo offering.
I am not talking about price I am talking about tech... nice you bring that up though... if you want my opinion about price, yes it should be $50 cheaper
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
software crap.
Needs to die.
So you are against forward looking technologies like realistic hair simulation?

NVIDIA and AMD both help promote the PC gaming environment by creating 3D programs and effects to exploit new hardware and bring forth unique effects in games. You should want that as a gamer.

The developer is the one who decides what technologies to implement. If you aren't seeing enough AMD created features in games, I would look toward AMD to evangelize its technologies to game developers better to convince them to implement it.

NVIDIA is playing to win, AMD needs to play ball and do the same. I want competition, it is good for this industry.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
the AIO is going to be a crippling point for the Fury X. The majority doesn't want to make (or even have) the space for dedicated GPU radiators in their chassis. This is a niche/halo product being pushed as a mainstream flagship, and it's going to backfire badly.
Ummm no. If you are spending this kind of coin you are likely building your own rig. And if you are building your own rig, you are going to chose a good case with at least one 120mm fan port. In fact just about all 3rd party ATX case designs I know of have a 120mm out the back.
 

AVogel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
247
Question for Brent:

Have you tried replicating the benches in the Reviewers Guide where they used 0xAF? Seems they really tweaked every possible setting just to try to make the Fury X look competitive (not even good, just competitive).
 

quikt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
173
Got some laughs from this


on topic, are there any reviews of the fury x in crossfire?
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,257
So you are against forward looking technologies like realistic hair simulation?

NVIDIA and AMD both help promote the PC gaming environment by creating 3D programs and effects to exploit new hardware and bring forth unique effects in games. You should want that as a gamer.

The developer is the one who decides what technologies to implement. If you aren't seeing enough AMD created features in games, I would look toward AMD to evangelize its technologies to game developers better to convince them to implement it.

NVIDIA is playing to win, AMD needs to play ball and do the same. I want competition, it is good for this industry.
the difference is one lets everyone have access to it and does hinder the performance of their competitor, the other one locks everyone out and does hinder the performance of their competitor
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Question for Brent:

Have you tried replicating the benches in the Reviewers Guide where they used 0xAF? Seems they really tweaked every possible setting just to try to make the Fury X look competitive (not even good, just competitive).
No, I really don't use those things as a guide for my testing.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
the difference is one lets everyone have access to it and does hinder the performance of their competitor, the other one locks everyone out and does hinder the performance of their competitor
whether true or not, the developer is still in control of what technologies they want to implement in their game, and that is their choice, and the experience they want to deliver

our job is just to find out how said game performs and looks on video cards, compare it, and find which one provides the best value for the money

it really is that simple, the only way to see Game A's performance, is to test Game A, we aren't going to pick sides and start cherry picking games on whether NVIDIA or AMD features are present, that would indeed be biased
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,037
I am not talking about price I am talking about tech... nice you bring that up though... if you want my opinion about price, yes it should be $50 cheaper
That's a bullshit cop-out and you know it. AMD chose to price this as they did, knowing full well what they were delivering to market. Can't have a GPU if you don't spend the money to get it. Price is an absolute crucial metric.


Ummm no. If you are spending this kind of coin you are likely building your own rig. And if you are building your own rig, you are going to chose a good case with at least one 120mm fan port. In fact just about all 3rd party ATX case designs I know of have a 120mm out the back.
That's a bullshit cop-out and you know it. The majority of buyers in this price segment should not be expected to nor required to build an entirely new system to house a GPU or two that doesn't compete with a competitors product that is easily installed in just about any existing build. Hell, I'm willing to bet that a majority of Titan buyers didn't build entirely new systems for their overpriced $1000 apiece GPUs.
 

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,042
the difference is one lets everyone have access to it and does hinder the performance of their competitor, the other one locks everyone out and does hinder the performance of their competitor
Unless there are lines of code which basically says

Code:
if(card = AMD) then fuck over
then it doesn't hinder. All it does is allow the HW vendor to show their product in the best light. If you can't respect that, then you fall the level of a childish academic. I don't buy a video card to watch benchmarks...I buy them to play games. If a vendor does more work via all available avenues to provide me a better experience for less $ than the its competitor, great.
 

Daroller

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
127
^ thanks for totally missing the point it's new tech and it almost performs as good as.
Who cares? AMD's marketing push said it would be better than it is. It is an underwhelming product launch made all the worse by their marketing department telling bald-faced lies.

Don't get this twisted. Everyone would like to see viable, competitive products from AMD. The Fury X doesn't reach that goal.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
That's a bullshit cop-out and you know it. The majority of buyers in this price segment should not be expected to nor required to build an entirely new system to house a GPU or two that doesn't compete with a competitors product that is easily installed in just about any existing build. Hell, I'm willing to bet that a majority of Titan buyers didn't build entirely new systems for their overpriced $1000 apiece GPUs.
If you're building a high end system and don't pick a good case to begin with then you are an idiot.

Also high end GPUs and CPUs require high end power supplies. That also means a custom build most likely with a good case.

Or are you dumb enough to try to fit one of these into a Dell Latitude?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
The first prices in my country came up. Cheapest Fury is 2990 PLN, which is in league of cheapest vanilla 980 Ti - and it's about $800. AiB 980 Ti start from $80 more for MSI 980 Gaming up to $134 for Evga SC+ ACX 2.0 edition.

Considering getting rid of my SLI setup for one of those cards, and it looks like MSI 980 Ti for me... $80 aint that much for 2 GB more VRAM and few more FPS.
 

bryanw1995

n00b
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
31
Our gaming suite has been recently all replaced, now with new games. These are new games, popular games, games people are playing now. My only regret was not having enough time to also include Batman or Project Cars.
You guys are catching a lot of criticism because you test only a few games. Testing such a low number has, perhaps, caused you to reach different conclusions, or at least far more negative ones, from pretty much every other review site on the planet. Perhaps in the future you could do 10 or 15 tests instead of just a couple?
 

Banko

Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
991
Ummm no. If you are spending this kind of coin you are likely building your own rig. And if you are building your own rig, you are going to chose a good case with at least one 120mm fan port. In fact just about all 3rd party ATX case designs I know of have a 120mm out the back.
Sure but a while back I went for a MiniITX build where I wanted a tiny case with the best single GPU money can buy.

At the time I went with the Titan, and then I updated to the Titan X. There is no room anywhere for me to fit a Fury X even if I wanted to.
 

bexamous

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,670
Dislike the very end of the review:

> In terms of gaming performance, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X seems like better competition for the GeForce GTX 980 4GB video card, rather than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. GTX 980 cards are selling for as low at $490 today. This is not a good thing since the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is priced at $649, the same price as the GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

This seems like a bit of an exageration. There is a pretty big gap between 980 and 980Ti, the FuryX is much closer to the 980Ti than 980. Seems like an unwarrented dig, especially considering 980 was not part of review.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
You guys are catching a lot of criticism because you test only a few games. Testing such a low number has, perhaps, caused you to reach different conclusions, or at least far more negative ones, from pretty much every other review site on the planet. Perhaps in the future you could do 10 or 15 tests instead of just a couple?
We don't do tests, we play games and relate that gaming experience between video cards to you. It takes time to play games. We go for quality over quantity. We do all we possibly can. If you want to find out how games perform, this is the place for you, if not, we won't include useless testing.
 

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
We don't do tests, we play games and relate that gaming experience between video cards to you. It takes time to play games. We go for quality over quantity. We do all we possibly can. If you want to find out how games perform, this is the place for you, if not, we won't include useless testing.
Speaking of which... Brent, you have any numbers for the mess that is called Arkham Knight? Is it on par 980 Ti, or as in other games - likee 10% below?
 

bexamous

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,670
You guys are catching a lot of criticism because you test only a few games. Testing such a low number has, perhaps, caused you to reach different conclusions, or at least far more negative ones, from pretty much every other review site on the planet. Perhaps in the future you could do 10 or 15 tests instead of just a couple?
There is 100 sites doing all the same testing, and then there is [H] doing different type. We don't need 101 sites doing all the same testing.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
Speaking of which... Brent, you have any numbers for the mess that is called Arkham Knight? Is it on par 980 Ti, or as in other games - likee 10% below?
Nothing yet, I will start it soon. I have a large backlog of evaluations to work on, and right now I am recovering from the Fury X review :p
 
Top