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

i assume that an overclocked review is in the works?

and can you please close the "390x coming in a few weeks" thread.
 
Been skimming through reviews and lets just be honest, what a let down.

Kyle, any info if this card supports PLP eyefinity like 285 series does? Would be my only reason to buy this one instead of card from the green side.
 
Thanks for the solid review Brent and Kyle. I am willing to buy one for sub $550 or even an air cooled version with the same specs. Not really sure what AMD is thinking here with the current prices on its line up. If I am not mistaken they barely even moved any units when at this price point when the 7970 was the number #1 card till the 680 hit. I do not see much of these selling at all.
 
jameson-1435082861.gif
 
madgun said:
And I was labeled as an nVidia shill by the red team when I pointed out that 4GB will turn out to be a catastrophe for Big Fiji.

Now [H] says the same. I got one phrase: "Asta La Vista Baby!"
Click to expand...

If the extra VRAM the 980 Ti has was so needed why was the 4K apples to apples a wash ? Why didn't the 980 Ti make huge gains on FPS ? 1-5 FPS is blowing the Fury X out of the water ?
 
Simmonz said:
I only read the apples to apples and I saw the Fury X match or be within 5 FPS of the 980 Ti on Min and AVG for pretty much all games. Wattage was within 20 watts and it was 25 degrees cooler. For the same price as the 980 Ti I'd say this is alright. It doesn't blow the 980 Ti out of the water but it runs cooler and doesn't cost more.
Click to expand...

within 5fps means nothing without additional context, i.e. how many percentage points is that 5fps accounting for?

when you're at 80+ yeah, 5fps might not mean much, at least not on a 60hz monitor

but when you're sub 40fps, those 5 frames mean a lot
 
Great review.

So much fail here.
1) Late to the game.
2) Costs the same as a GTX980 Ti but trails it in performance
3) 4GB VRAM (compared to GTX980 Ti's 6GB)
4) Requires water cooler
5) No HDMI 2.0

This card would have had a chance had it been the "390X" and priced as such. Now we know why they went with "Fury" - to describe the emotion from those that bought this card without reading the reviews first.
 
Simmonz said:
If the extra VRAM the 980 Ti has was so needed why was the 4K apples to apples a wash ? Why didn't the 980 Ti make huge gains on FPS ? 1-5 FPS is blowing the Fury X out of the water ?
Click to expand...

You're ignoring what happened in games like GTA 5 and Dying light. The memory allocation was around 5 Gigs and Big Fiji naturally could not manage it. This resulted in lower min FPS numbers than the 980 Ti.

Game play experience deteriorates when such as scenario happens. Average FPS don't tell you the whole story.

Please read the review, it explains a lot better what I am trying to say.
 
Ouc that was brutal - but to be fair if you think about it as 550$ card with 100$ CLC then it has not so bad value so someone willing to pay for silence might find it ok.

Maybe Fury non X won't be cut down chip after all.
 
Like the review said, putting 8GB of VRAM on the 390/390X and 4GB on the Fury seems to make no sense.
The card that has the 4K horsepower does hot have the VRAM and the card that has the VRAM for 4K, does have the horsepower - a very weird decision from AMD.
 
Radeondozer.




Although, I am a bit disappointed...

Hopefully some driver maturity will open up some more performance, but getting around 15% more in order to match the 980ti may be quite a stretch.

On the bright side, the Fury brings one hell of a gain over the previous gen. That, to me, is quite commendable.


Thanks for putting in the effort for another awesome review, Brent!

Really looking forward to seeing what Nano can do.
 
If you are going to post in this thread, you had best post ON TOPIC. Infractions are already being handed out. I am tired of cleaning up all these juvenile messes caused by some of the asinine posts being made. Address the hardware and marketing and rumors we have seen up to this point. DO NOT address specific individuals and their thoughts posted in other threads.
 
gnzblz said:
Great review.

So much fail here.
1) Late to the game.
2) Costs the same as a GTX980 Ti but trails it in performance
3) 4GB VRAM (compared to GTX980 Ti's 6GB)
4) Requires water cooler
5) No HDMI 2.0

This card would have had a chance had it been the "390X" and priced as such. Now we know why they went with "Fury" - to describe the emotion from those that bought this card without reading the reviews first.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require it. It just feels pointless though. At the moment at least you can hardly overclock the card, the idle noise is bad and it just makes the thing even more expensive. I'm actually quite surprised why they added that water cooler... Okay, temps are nice but what's the point when you can't seem to make use of that cooler?
 
Disappointing and puzzling. I just don't understand some of the choices they made, which were illustrated in the conclusion of the review. I put off upgrading for months waiting for this day, and it was all for naught. Should have just bought a 970. Maybe the 390 cards are worth a closer look. Disgusted.
 
Tup3x said:
It doesn't require it. It just feels pointless though. At the moment at least you can hardly overclock the card, the idle noise is bad and it just makes the thing even more expensive.
Click to expand...
You can't buy any air cooled models yet, and I don't think there are any aftermarket air coolers that fit it. In that sense, water-cooling is currently required -- You can't use the Fury X without water.

checked with NH and they said drivers are early and need more polish.
Click to expand...
Performance will go up maybe 10% in the coming months, maybe the 980 Ti's will too?
Not really enough to sway people one way or the other.
 
Simmonz said:
I only read the apples to apples and I saw the Fury X match or be within 5-8 FPS of the 980 Ti on Min and AVG for pretty much all games. Wattage was within 20 watts and it was 25 degrees cooler. For the same price as the 980 Ti I'd say this is alright. It doesn't blow the 980 Ti out of the water but it runs cooler and doesn't cost more.
Click to expand...

The 980 Ti is merely a tweak of something NVidia has had out for almost a year now.
It IS a stout card and runs almost as well as the top of the line Titan X.

The Fury X has been touted as the absolute latest and greatest, and it ain't that, not even a bag of chips.

Unfortunately this is a fail at the price point it's selling, AIO cooler and all.

Yeah it looks cute, but that's about it.

Hell......my 290Xs are nearly as good.:mad:
 
Curious if the stock price is gonna go down today due to all the disappointment.
 
madgun said:
You're ignoring what happened in games like GTA 5 and Dying light. The memory allocation was around 5 Gigs and Big Fiji naturally could not manage it. This resulted in lower min FPS numbers than the 980 Ti.

Game play experience deteriorates when such as scenario happens. Average FPS don't tell you the whole story.

Please read the review, it explains a lot better what I am trying to say.
Click to expand...

the Fury X performs < GTX 980 in [H]'s Dying light test

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/5#.VYqnT_lVjwM

GTX 980 min @ 40, avg @ 56.7, max @ 73

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/6#.VYqnZvlVjwM

Fury X min @ 37, avg @ 51.7, max @ 77

so if the GTX 980 is > Fury X in [H]'s apples comparison, is it really VRAM capacity or is it the GameWorks advantage or is it Fury X immature drivers?
 
Rage Fury MAXX 2.0

(Or is that reserved for the dual GPU card coming out?)
 
Disappointing, big hype over hbm but all it seems to have done is lower power consumption allowing them to put more into the core, with gddr 5 it probably would have been hotter and slower.

7 years of work and essentially a wet fart is the outcome, not enough ram for its supposed targeted resolution, not enough grunt either, just overall the package in totality wasn't enough for what they were aiming it for. It really does feel like amd cpu releases, tons of hype and ends up with "meh" performance.
 
tonyftw said:
I agree 100%. Maybe the regular fury will be better received?

Good card nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Still 3 weeks away.
They should have passed on the Fury X and just made air cards @ $550. At least they would have the price advantage.

Now we have 3 weeks to circulate "Fury X kinda sucks" which leads into a disheartened Fury launch. AMD is turning into a parody of themselves.
 
Really dissapointing from AMD.
All that extra time and they came up short.
I wanted to want a Fury X but my next GPU is the 980Ti.
 
SnowBeast said:
God I love this site! Again an honest and straight to the point review. The Titanic is sinking. Kudos to Brent, Kyle, Steve, and the rest of the gang for the honesty, unlike the preview and leaked bullshit over the last couple of weeks. Had to be [H]ard not to jump in and voice the truth over the last couple of weeks. Thanks again guys! :)
Click to expand...

Gotta agree it takes balls to call a spade a spade. While the other websites were sugar coating the fury x's failure to beat the 980 ti, this site didn't pull any punches.
 
Man, I really wonder if their drivers simply aren't ready yet. Some very inconsistent performance, especially in Witcher 3 and GTA5.

Also why keep the voltage locked for reviews? Makes no sense, at least if it overclocked well more people might be interested in it.

{NG}Fidel said:
Really dissapointing from AMD.
All that extra time and they came up short.
I wanted to want a Fury X but my next GPU is the 980Ti.
Click to expand...

Yeah, same here. Also considering sticking with my 290X until 14/16nm GPUs drop.
 
That was an ass whuppin' if I ever saw one. Just another reason not to upgrade. Thanks for the great review as always. AMD should try harder next time.
 
AceCR42 said:
Man, I really wonder if their drivers simply aren't ready yet. Some very inconsistent performance, especially in Witcher 3 and GTA5.
Click to expand...


Don't let the thought of "drivers are ready" be a red herring. The fact is that the card is launched, it is for sale, and this is the performance you get when playing today's games.

Quite frankly, we at [H] expect performance scaling over time due to better drivers.
 
I may very well be keeping the 6950/70 in place now. This has been very disappointing - not the review, but the results.

Could there perhaps be a saving grace when looking at OC vs OC compared to the Ti? I'm willing to guess that it'll help as long as VRAM cap isn't being hit..

EDIT: I also wanted to ask if we can expect a Crossfire review of the card vs SLI 980 Ti's?
 
CombatChrisNC said:
I may very well be keeping the 6950/70 in place now. This has been very disappointing - not the review, but the results.

Could there perhaps be a saving grace when looking at OC vs OC compared to the Ti? I'm willing to guess that it'll help as long as VRAM cap isn't being hit..
Click to expand...

Fury X can only overclock 5-10%, Ti can reach 30%. Check other reviews. Overclocking won't save the Fury X.
 
Currently due to voltage lock, there isn't a great deal of headroom for OC with Fury X, so the results may be limited
 
Udgnim said:
the Fury X performs < GTX 980 in [H]'s Dying light test

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/18/msi_r9_390x_gaming_8g_video_card_review/5#.VYqnT_lVjwM

GTX 980 min @ 40, avg @ 56.7, max @ 73

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/6#.VYqnZvlVjwM

Fury X min @ 37, avg @ 51.7, max @ 77

so if the GTX 980 is > Fury X in [H]'s apples comparison, is it really VRAM capacity or is it the GameWorks advantage or is it Fury X immature drivers?
Click to expand...

Again, you didn't read a key part of the review. The game required 5 GB of VRAM which the Fury X didn't have.

Game play experience wasn't as smooth compared to the 980 Ti since when cards run out of memory they have to swap in data from the memory which introduces latencies.
 
"The HDMI connection support is not version 2.0."

And i stopped reading. call me be back when AMD includes the REQUIRED DP 1.2 > HDMI 2.0 adapter.:mad: on the bundle.
 
CombatChrisNC said:
I may very well be keeping the 6950/70 in place now. This has been very disappointing - not the review, but the results.

Could there perhaps be a saving grace when looking at OC vs OC compared to the Ti? I'm willing to guess that it'll help as long as VRAM cap isn't being hit..

EDIT: I also wanted to ask if we can expect a Crossfire review of the card vs SLI 980 Ti's?
Click to expand...

Nope - 980 ti has around 20% of overclocking headroom, Fury X at the moment hits maybe 10% so it's even worse.

OT- I'd at least upgrade to 290/390/970 level card instead of sitting on 6970.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top