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

You never bought video cards based on playing games?

What do you use your video card for then?

He just likes the way they look. A modern art masterpiece to be put on display.
[H] needs to start taking sweet 16 glamor shots of gpu's for Flopper :D
 
He just likes the way they look. A modern art masterpiece to be put on display.
[H] needs to start taking sweet 16 glamor shots of gpu's for Flopper :D

Or just ignore the blatantly obvious trolling.
 
You never bought video cards based on playing games?

What do you use your video card for then?

do not feed the troll Brent, don't waste time making a reply to Flopper... we all here know how blindly-fanboy is him
 
You have been shown proof multiple times where less than 4GB matters.
I can show it to you again if you like, but I dont think it will help you.
You either struggle reading, understanding or have something wrong up top.
As such, what you say has limited value.

Fury is not neck and neck with the 980ti, it was soundly beaten.
If you wish to contradict this, provide direct evidence so it can be scrutinised.

Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
 
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.

Not sure why you're upset when you know that in this case the 980 Ti has come out as a clear winner.

4GB was never going to be future proof when you have titles such as GTA 5 consuming 5.7 Gigs on a GTX TitanX.
 
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p

Not sure if I'd call 9% a "sound beating" but it's significant. BIOs mod (takes 5 minutes) the 980ti and the gap would increase.

[H]'s review shows similar margin.

What turns me off the most about the Fury X is the frame times. If you look at 99 percentile the Fury X is actually worse than a 980.
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/14

That and the Fury X seems pretty hot. Not that I'd care if I could put a full cover block on it and overvolt it for significant gains. That is to be seen. Specifically the 89C on the PCIe slot on the mobo:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-8.html
:eek:
 
Not sure why you're upset when you know that in this case the 980 Ti has come out as a clear winner.

4GB was never going to be future proof when you have titles such as GTA 5 consuming 5.7 Gigs on a GTX TitanX.

Consuming does not equate needing. Besides your argument is so far off the mark. Go back an read my post in its entirety again, because you definitely missed my point.

Tell you what, when I get home I will break it down and go I to greater detail to better clarify the point. Debating on phones is hard and time consuming.
 
Last edited:
The apples to apples 4k page:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/9#.VYspS0Zuxrg

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt: The Fury X is 36% faster than the Radeon R9 290X.
GTAV: R9 Fury X is 45% faster than the R9 290X.
Dying Light: R9 Fury X is 27% faster than R9 290X.
Far Cry 4: The R9 Fury X is 38% faster than R9 290X.
BF4: R9 Fury X is 38% faster than the R9 290X.

Based on these titles, 36.4% faster on average. By ~40% I meant I was just approximating based on a cursory glance.

So you are only taking 4k performance into account? What about the majority of users who are on 1080p, the lesser amount on 1440p, and the few who are on 2180p.... I guess observing results that make you feel you are getting more for your money is what you like.... If you are only looking at this card for 4k, then sure, its almost 40% faster than the 290x but then again, it gets beat by the 980Ti most of the time for nearly the same price.
 
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
Have you dropped the 4GB issue?

As shown above, Fury struggles to keep up with the 980ti.
Check the [H] review as well, same story.

It receives a sound beating because it loses most tests, some hugely.
In the small number of wins for the Fury, it is only just faster.
Worse, it is not a huge overclocker as promised and is even more soundly beat by a clocked 980ti, while using more power.
It doesnt get better minimum fps, the frame times show its not as smooth....
I can go on :p
 
Just ordered 980 Ti today waiting on this review just an FYI the Zotac 980Ti is 10 bucks off got it for 639 and no tax from Newegg!! I have amazon prime but 50 bucks tax :( so I spent the tax on next day delivery from the egg 25 bones. YAY go me :p
 
Have you dropped the 4GB issue?

As shown above, Fury struggles to keep up with the 980ti.
Check the [H] review as well, same story.

It receives a sound beating because it loses most tests, some hugely.
In the small number of wins for the Fury, it is only just faster.
Worse, it is not a huge overclocker as promised and is even more soundly beat by a clocked 980ti, while using more power.
It doesnt get better minimum fps, the frame times show its not as smooth....
I can go on :p

If you check more than the [H] review you'll see the Fury beating the 980ti at 4k. I mean, even in the [H] review, which has the worse results for the Fury, it is only 5% behind the 980ti at 4k.
 
Just ordered 980 Ti today waiting on this review just an FYI the Zotac 980Ti is 10 bucks off got it for 639 and no tax from Newegg!! I have amazon prime but 50 bucks tax :( so I spent the tax on next day delivery from the egg 25 bones. YAY go me :p

Dude you need to get shop-runner it is free two day shipping and I have not paid them a penny for the 2years I have used shop-runner.
(I never even gave them my credit card info, it boggles the mind as to how that company still exists)
 
If you check more than the [H] review you'll see the Fury beating the 980ti at 4k. I mean, even in the [H] review, which has the worse results for the Fury, it is only 5% behind the 980ti at 4k.

The fury only beat the 980ti in one game. That was far cry 4.
 
Dude you need to get shop-runner it is free two day shipping and I have not paid them a penny for the 2years I have used shop-runner.
(I never even gave them my credit card info, it boggles the mind as to how that company still exists)


2 day does not help me I want to play with it this weekend.

Thent
 
If you check more than the [H] review you'll see the Fury beating the 980ti at 4k. I mean, even in the [H] review, which has the worse results for the Fury, it is only 5% behind the 980ti at 4k.

The AMD blindness is strong in this one :p
Here are the 4K % difference results from [H] presented as positive = 980ti win:

4% --- Witcher 3
10% - GTA V
13% - Dying Light
-6% -- FC4
7% --- BF4

Almost a clear knockout.
These are with stock cards, no overclock.
Add 20 approx to each of those % figures to compare overclocks.
Some 980ti cards can take that to +30 !!
 
Last edited:
I think the Fury X would be a worthy card if the price was 75-100 USD cheaper than it is now.
 
I think the Fury X would be a worthy card if the price was 75-100 USD cheaper than it is now.

This 100%. If the air fury is not cut and costs $550 that is a pretty good card, but the 4gb hard limit is still there.
 
This 100%. If the air fury is not cut and costs $550 that is a pretty good card, but the 4gb hard limit is still there.

That would make more sense... I imagine the reviews would be more favorable at $550 as long as the cooler is adequate.
 
This 100%. If the air fury is not cut and costs $550 that is a pretty good card, but the 4gb hard limit is still there.
For 4K maybe, anything less than that you are better off with a GTX 980.
AMD has specifically positioned this card to compete at 4K and it actually fails everywhere else. The $550 Fury will also fail below 4K, even if it's still a full Fiji XT.

Are there really enough 4K gamers right now to justify a card like this? I don't think so but then again I'm also a bitter 1080p gamer.
 
For 4K maybe, anything less than that you are better off with a GTX 980.
AMD has specifically positioned this card to compete at 4K and it actually fails everywhere else. The $550 Fury will also fail below 4K, even if it's still a full Fiji XT.

Are there really enough 4K gamers right now to justify a card like this? I don't think so but then again I'm also a bitter 1080p gamer.

A $550 Fury vs a $500 980. The fury wins hands down.

4k this generation is a marketing gimmick imho.
 
With the thermals of the Fiji and for it to require water cooling. Big Fiji will require decent chunk of copper to keep the thermals under control and maintain the said clock speeds.
 
Really? Against an overclocked 980? Could you link it in? That is just insane.
A used 980 can be bought for $400.

I game at 1550MHz on my 980, the reference card boosts to 1216MHz.
Thats +27% over reference.
 
This is why i come to [H] they tell it like it is.:cool: yes even when we don't want to hear it.:( What we're seeing here is the Maxwell effect. Fury was made with Kepler in mind. they haven't gotten around to Maxwell yet.Anyways keep up the good work [H] Don't change a thing.(well maybe a few more games):D
 
I think the Fury X would be a worthy card if the price was 75-100 USD cheaper than it is now.

After 30+ pages of mostly repetitive, useless "discussion", this right here is the bottom line. The Fury X is a fine piece of equipment, but not for $650.
 
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.

Here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/21
I'm thinking this is 4k AA whereas most sites did non AA
You have to compare the white line to the black - because the fury X doesn't o/c worth
a damn! I am seeing >20% in about half the games.
What's worse, in comparison to the 8 GB 390x, it loses to in in Crysis and is <10% better
with a handful more. BTW, that 390x was NOT overclocked.

Not sure why you're upset when you know that in this case the 980 Ti has come out as a clear winner.
4GB was never going to be future proof when you have titles such as GTA 5 consuming 5.7 Gigs on a GTX TitanX.

In fairness, this is sometimes misleading when review sites post VRAM consumption. It would only validate it if they could see performance degradation with less vram. I am by no means a guru, but are these cards with insane frame buffers "oversampling" in some of these tests?
 
AMD needs to learn the business adage of under-promise, over-deliver. They to consistently promise to get you to the moon, but instead perhaps only get you to Everest. They need to manage expectations much better; you get better responses and look less like an idiot and/or a liar.
 
1st Wrong! They are sold out everywhere... the card is in the right price and it comes with wc.
2nd You should wait for new drivers. 390x "290x" almost 3 year old card is currently trading blow with GTX980. and the best part is Fury X trading blows with Titan X and 980ti. what do you think is going to happen when they release better drivers?
3rd HBM is not fancy, is actually new tech thats why Nvidia wants yo use it...
4th stop being a fanboy, they aren't paying you right?

1: The card comes with a liquid cooler because it NEEDS a liquid cooler to run at the "stock" clock speeds.

2: Trading blows. Not exceeding. For the 390 that's a little disappointing, but not unexpected. For the Fury? That's ridiculous. Also, if we're going to continue with the "trading blows" metaphor.

https://youtu.be/AW256O1uK74

nVidia: Achilles
AMD: Hector

'nuff said

3: The problem is, HBM on its own doesn't help when there isn't enough of it to support the card's stated purpose. Which is, to run games at 4K.

4: Stop being a fanboy? PHYSICIAN! HEAL THYSELF! (Translation: You first!)
 
1: The card comes with a liquid cooler because it NEEDS a liquid cooler to run at the "stock" clock speeds.
Here it is again. Twice in 5 minutes from 2 different people.
Can you prove that?

Because the card is using about 20W less than the 290X and significantly less than something like the MSI 390X and all of those are air-cooled.

The power results are right here in the exact review you're responding to.
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/10#.VYx8h0bIbCM
 
Ok so now I am home and will give greater detail into this post (too many not getting the point):

Problem here is, and in most reviews, there is no proof of 4Gb being an issue. None. Every benchmark I have seen @4k has the Fury = 980Ti/TitanX, 4Gb against 6/12Gb. It's not to say it isn't an issue but it alone doesn't explain why the Fury is neck and neck with its NVIDIA competitors. Therefore the complaint that 4Gb is the issue for AMD when that is the one tier it puts up a solid performance, invalidates the complaint. It doesn't explain why the NVIDIA counter parts struggle against the same card they easily out performed at lower resolutions. Of course there is bus width and bandwidth but the issue being made was 4Gb which seems unfounded or needs a lot more investigation before making such claims.

This whole discussion started with a poster asking the very question I had all based on the review and what was written. It was alluded that 4Gb was an issue for a flagship GPU as it would hinder its performance at 4k by even stating that the 980Ti with 6Gb was using 5.7Gb of its Vram. Even using the loose numbers of performance at different resolution levels stated earlier, the 4k performance does not follow the lower resolution performance levels. Add the 4Gb Vram one would assume based on the articles concern that the Vram limitation would falter the Fury to poor performance levels compared to the already proven strength of the 980Ti/TitanX at lower resolutions. But the 4k benches do not show this outcome.

So lets look at the point I was making. Say the 4Gb Vram is definitely hampering the Fury's performance, then what is hampering the 980Ti's or TitanX? It is already documented in the 1440p benches that the 980Ti/TitanX are better performers. Even at 1080p on other review sites. And given they have higher Vram counts compared to the Fury they should not see much if any issue at 4k, given the assumption in the article. But in the 4k Benches they are virtually tied. Percents do not give adequate reality in low FPS results. Most 4k benches result in 20-40FPS. Therefore 10% is at best 3-4 frames. Any way the graphs show no real hitches or Vram limiting spikes one would expect with Vram issues. Again it doesn't mean 4Gb is not limiting at all, but rather there is more info needed to explain the result.

None of this is pointing to false benches or biased results but rather accepting the results as fact it leaves more questions than answers given thru the review. There are numerous reasons for AMD Fury not being hit as hard at the 4k Benches, bandwidth or bus can easily be advantageous at higher resolutions. Simply put there is not enough evidence to prove the Vram was a limiting factor, or in this case the only factor to 4k gaming.
 
Here it is again. Twice in 5 minutes from 2 different people.
Can you prove that?

Because the card is using about 20W less than the 290X and significantly less than something like the MSI 390X and all of those are air-cooled.

The power results are right here in the exact review you're responding to.
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/10#.VYx8h0bIbCM

They wouldnt use a water cooler unless they absolutely needed it because of cost, inconvenience and restrictions.
So it must be needed.

Put an air cooler on it and it will be 20 to 30C hotter at the same speeds, this would make it unstable unless clocks were lowered substantially.
It needs to be that cool to achieve the high clock speeds.
 
Here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/21
I'm thinking this is 4k AA whereas most sites did non AA
You have to compare the white line to the black - because the fury X doesn't o/c worth
a damn! I am seeing >20% in about half the games.
What's worse, in comparison to the 8 GB 390x, it loses to in in Crysis and is <10% better
with a handful more. BTW, that 390x was NOT overclocked.



In fairness, this is sometimes misleading when review sites post VRAM consumption. It would only validate it if they could see performance degradation with less vram. I am by no means a guru, but are these cards with insane frame buffers "oversampling" in some of these tests?

I am not convinced with that site. Not the least of which the Nvidia cards are not reference so that skews numbers quite a bit. Pretty much every other site showed results quite close to [H] (with the exception of BF4 @1440p) using reference cards for the most part. But look at my post above to get a better idea what the issue was. It wasn't that AMD was a better performer. It was about word usage and issues.
 
The AMD blindness is strong in this one :p
Here are the 4K % difference results from [H] presented as positive = 980ti win:

4% --- Witcher 3
10% - GTA V
13% - Dying Light
-6% -- FC4
7% --- BF4

Almost a clear knockout.
These are with stock cards, no overclock.
Add 20 approx to each of those % figures to compare overclocks.
Some 980ti cards can take that to +30 !!

Even though your math is wrong, your right, I meant to say that at worse it was 5 fps lower than the 980ti. Gameplay wise, there's no difference.
 
Good point durquavian, I am starting to have my doubts after doing a bit more research.
Perhaps we will get clarification with a Fury X crossfire vs. 980ti in SLI running 4k surround
:p

tweaktown ran a couple of articles a vram consumption, but I am calling B.S on it. They have several games running over 4 GB with AA in 2.5k (I am calling 1440p 2.5k, think it will catch on?). i think Battlefield 4 showed 7.5 Gb when running 4k. Sorry, not buying it.
 
Back
Top