Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
y'all will say ANYTHING won't you?
Do you honestly think that a game patch is going to account for over 40%?
HBM is an improvement on just about everything. It's important to not confuse Fury's performance with HBM, the only reason it's even performing as well as it is, is because of HBM. A lot more bandwidth, less power consumption and a much smaller package. It's definitely a superior technology to GDDR5.
y'all will say ANYTHING won't you?
Do you honestly think that a game patch is going to account for over 40%?
PC World's review of the EVGA SC 980ti shows it crushing Fury badly.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2940...-this-card-unleashes-maxwells-true-power.html
This just in! An O/C'ed card beats a reference card.
Show us the OC'd Fury cards.
How does that change the point of O/C vs. reference?
Even then it's not like it's beating it across the board. I'd hardly call that "crushing".
There are no overclocked Fury cards to do an OC vs OC comparison.
So the comparison is valid.
PC World's review of the EVGA SC 980ti shows it crushing Fury badly.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2940...-this-card-unleashes-maxwells-true-power.html
The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is about 4% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.
In GTAV the GTX 980 Ti is about 10% faster than R9 Fury X
Dying Light is 13% faster with GTX 980 Ti over R9 Fury X
For the first time ever in our evaluation, one game, at 4K is faster on the R9 Fury X (at unplayable settings on both cards mind you). The R9 Fury X is faster than the 980 Ti by 6%, in reality it is a whole 2.4 FPS average.
In some of those 4K numbers, the Fury X is trailing behind the rest of the competition (980 ti and TX) by 7fps. That's pre bad.... :S
Kyle whats with the wording during the 4k:
This is why the review looks biased. Point out that ALL of the comparisons are tiny and within a margin of error, not just when the Fury is faster.
How does that change the point of O/C vs. reference?
Even then it's not like it's beating it across the board. I'd hardly call that "crushing".
Kyle whats with the wording during the 4k:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/9#.VZGcLflVhBd
Witcher 3:
When describing 31.5 vs 32.7 (1.2 FPS difference)
GTA V:
28.4 vs 31.2 FPS difference (2.8 FPS)
Dying Light:
44.9 vs 39.8 (5.1 FPS)
Far Cry:
So here the Fury is faster, and you finally point out that saying its X% faster is ridiculous, yet you had no qualms pointing out the 4% (1.2 fps), 10% (2.8 FPS) and 7% (2.9 FPS in BF 4) when the 980 TI was faster?
This is why the review looks biased. Point out that ALL of the comparisons are tiny and within a margin of error, not just when the Fury is faster.
% are much more meaningful than FPS to a lot of people, including me. I turn all FPS into %. Like the Eurogamer review had OC vs OC so I threw their charts into excel and made a summary.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review
9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
I have it in my head the 980 is 24% faster than a 290x, Titan X is 38% faster than the 980... so I can do simple math like 1.24*1.38 = 1.71, the Titan X should be 71% faster than a 290x. Then I can easily extrapolate it into SLI, blah blah blah. Then I can decide is a Titan X at $999 worth it over a 290x at $270 for 71% more performance, ect.
Biased because of percents? ... what will you people come up with next...
% are much more meaningful than FPS to a lot of people, including me. I turn all FPS into %. Like the Eurogamer review had OC vs OC so I threw their charts into excel and made a summary.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review
9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
I have it in my head the 980 is 24% faster than a 290x, Titan X is 38% faster than the 980... so I can do simple math like 1.24*1.38 = 1.71, the Titan X should be 71% faster than a 290x. Then I can easily extrapolate it into SLI, blah blah blah. Then I can decide is a Titan X at $999 worth it over a 290x at $270 for 71% more performance, ect.
Biased because of percents? ... what will you people come up with next...
Can you please explain the reasoning behind this?
This is a cop out. He's just pointing out a perceived inconsistency. Yeah, I know. X in the corner. Disappointing.
Did you bother to read my post? The only time they pointed out that the percent was a small actual FPS change was when the Fury was higher, even if the FPS difference was even LESS when the 980 TI was faster. Please go back and read my original post, I'm not going to repeat it here.
What are you guys even arguing anymore? At this point people are simply taking issue with HOW they said things, not even claiming that the review was wrong. If you are looking for articles that were all sunshine and rainbows about this release, there are certainly those out there if you simply want to feel good. It's a product launch. GPUs aren't a religion. Get over it.
Truth hurts.
Not refuting the contents of the article. I haven't owned an AMD product in a very, very long time. But I always take a look when they release new products. The way [H] presents their conclusions matters (to me). I've been an patron of this site also for a long time and feel a certain amount of pride about the way they manage their reviews relative to other sites. This diminishes that. IMHO. That's all I'll say on it.
You do realize that one writes reviews for potential buyers of said hardware. And those buyers visiting the article help pay the bills so more articles can be posted there so more buyers can visit the site to read the articles... . Professionalism can go a long way to increasing said number of buyers. Recommending others that visit these articles not do so seems rather disingenuous to the site that hosts those articles.
They made the right call, AMD need to try a lot harder.
Theres no way I can recommend the Fury X to anyone.
I can explain why if you are interested, but I think your agenda is beyond that.
I skimmed over as many reviews as I could when Fury X's review came out, and the only way I could do that was not by reading conclusion, but by skimming over the FPS data presented by each reviewer.
After reading a lot of them, my own conclusion drawn was exactly the same as [H]'s conclusion: good performer, bad pricing.
After digging the external reviews a little deeper, I found that a few of them had much greater problems than [H]'s: they completely ignore mentioning 980ti in their conclusion. The data is there for all to see, but in their write up they pretended 980ti didn't exist, and only compared it to AMD's own cards, which I personally find much more problematic, if the reviewer is comparing only AMD cards, why bother throwing in nVidia card data in there?
At the end of the day though, I base my purchase decisions based on facts (FPS data, pricing, etc), the stuff that don't need opinions, because opinions vary wildly between reviewers, but the data is relatively consistent.
With regards to the topic at hand, had Fury X truly been $550 instead of $650 it is now, would it still be able to gain significant market share from nVidia? It will easily beat 980 at the price, and completely ousts 970 on the memory bandwidth, but I personally feel lack of FreeSync at Crossfire setup is really not doing AMD any favors at the moment.
AMD = drivers cannot improve squat
NVidia = driver can give 30% plus
You do realize that one writes reviews for potential buyers of said hardware. And those buyers visiting the article help pay the bills so more articles can be posted there so more buyers can visit the site to read the articles... . Professionalism can go a long way to increasing said number of buyers. Recommending others that visit these articles not do so seems rather disingenuous to the site that hosts those articles.
AMD = drivers cannot improve squat
NVidia = driver can give 30% plus
Making 2 points.
There are no overclocked Fury cards to do an OC vs OC comparison.
So the comparison is valid.
Even the overclocked 980tis will overclock more than the Fury X.
% are much more meaningful than FPS to a lot of people, including me. I turn all FPS into %. Like the Eurogamer review had OC vs OC so I threw their charts into excel and made a summary.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review
9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
I have it in my head the 980 is 24% faster than a 290x, Titan X is 38% faster than the 980... so I can do simple math like 1.24*1.38 = 1.71, the Titan X should be 71% faster than a 290x. Then I can easily extrapolate it into SLI, blah blah blah. Then I can decide is a Titan X at $999 worth it over a 290x at $270 for 71% more performance, ect.
Biased because of percents? ... what will you people come up with next...
What are you guys even arguing anymore? At this point people are simply taking issue with HOW they said things, not even claiming that the review was wrong. If you are looking for articles that were all sunshine and rainbows about this release, there are certainly those out there if you simply want to feel good. It's a product launch. GPUs aren't a religion. Get over it.