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

y'all will say ANYTHING won't you?

Do you honestly think that a game patch is going to account for over 40%?
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
y'all will say ANYTHING won't you?

Do you honestly think that a game patch is going to account for over 40%?
Click to expand...


Different levels and a patch? Yeah that can easily account for 40%,

Just look at Crysis 3 the level with the ice will kill frame rates.
 
RamonGTP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Problem is when that superior technology is held back by GPU, then the benefit is lost. It'll take a die shrink before HBM is able to flex its muscle. Pascal, and whatever AMD counters with.
 
Relayer said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
:p
 
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:

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is about 4% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.
Click to expand...

When describing 31.5 vs 32.7 (1.2 FPS difference)


GTA V:
In GTAV the GTX 980 Ti is about 10% faster than R9 Fury X
Click to expand...

28.4 vs 31.2 FPS difference (2.8 FPS)


Dying Light:
Dying Light is 13% faster with GTX 980 Ti over R9 Fury X
Click to expand...

44.9 vs 39.8 (5.1 FPS)


Far Cry:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shadow85 said:
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
Click to expand...

Its making the Titan look bad too considering its faster than it in Shadows of Mordor (and maybe others didn't look at them)
 
DracoNB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very good point - the review should have ideally stated that at 4K they're almost neck and neck as far as play-ability goes, for ones chasing actual numbers, yes the 980ti is slightly faster.
 
Relayer said:
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".
Click to expand...

it doesn't exist any other model more than the "reference" Fury X, also, you can pick a SC EVGA model at 10$ above MSRP so its a valid comparison, is nobody fault that Fury X actually can't overclock and doesn't exist anything different than that reference model. Things will just go better when reviewers start to review the bad boys, EVGA Classified, Gigabyte G1 Gaming, MSI Lightning, Galax(y) HOF and etc..
 
It is a damn shame all the data is not there for you to come to your conclusions if you don't like ours....oh wait! It is!

If you don't like our opinions, or our wording, or our inflection, or the order of the words in some sentences, don't read HardOCP. The red X in the upper corner of your browser will solve ALL your issues with our thoughts and opinions, and whatever else you can find to gripe about.
 
DracoNB said:
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.
Click to expand...

% 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...
 
Dayaks said:
% 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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dayaks said:
% 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...
Click to expand...

This.
If you struggle with basic maths, study more, dont complain.
 
DracoNB said:
Can you please explain the reasoning behind this?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is the truth. Slower slower slower every time....the one time it is not, it really means nothing anyway. Now I get your point, why did we not say "it really does not matter" every instance in which you think we should have. Well the bottom line on that is this. Fury X is slower than 908Ti overall. Fury X consumes more power than 980Ti overall. Fury X requires radiator fitment where the 980Ti does not. Fury X is not an "overclocker's dream" as stated by AMD, the 980Ti is surely the winner in this department. Fury X cooling system is closed loop further impeding using it on a custom cooling system. All this for the low low price of exactly the same as the 980Ti.

Fury X would have been a crushing victory at $550. However it is not and is simply outclassed by its direct competition that AMD decided to take on when it started marketing and setting the MSRP of the card.

I am sorry you have taken issue with how we have said what we have had to say, it was never our intention to irritate our more sensitive readers. My sincerest apologies.
 
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.
 
DracoNB said:
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.
Click to expand...

I might of went off a little because I was slightly drunk.

So you're point was it downplayed the Fury X's only positive % and was neutral on the rest. I took it in the review as a bit of drama and passed over it. Maybe Brent played too many (or not enough) violent video games before writing the review. Giving middle fingers to the Fury X and all. I like some personality in the reviews. I suppose it's not for everyone.

Annnndd what this man said:

Rizen said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Nenu said:
Truth hurts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Eradan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have owned almost as much AMD hardware as NVidia and I find nothing wrong with their presentation or conclusions.
 
durquavian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
This is the first thought I had when reading the review. It's why I think I still have some hope out for the partner cards (Fiji pro) that come with an Air cooler. They should be cheaper, and hopefully provide more freedom to adjust settings such as voltage.
 
Nenu said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't have an agenda, don't really care. I look at things from an objective point of view, trying to be devoid as possible of injecting my own opinion, well till I feel experience has some merit. I believe in honor and decency to a point that as a reviewer they must be neutral at least through the testing and results. The conclusion exists for any opinion the author has no matter how degrading or supportive.

And there are many reason to recommend the Fury as well. Small form factor is huge with a lot of those buying it. Water cooling which adds cooler GPU temps (allowing for solid clocks, avoiding throttling whilst gaming) and quieter operation (not worried about a few Youtubers, I am sure there will be a number with issues just as there are with coil whine). Performance level is good albeit not atop the heap.

Don't have to be all negative. We just have to accept what is and move on.
 
chenw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is the argument here:

Fury with watercooling is $650

980Ti air cooler is $650

980Ti with watercooling is ~ $750 ( not out yet right so this was the speculated price )

So using just water cooling GPUs as reference the Fury is $100 less and will still trail the 980Ti in performance. Which is what is being said. Assume for a second the Fury had an Air cooled card then it would likely be $550, which seems to be where most here think it should be. ( no need for performance speculation and what Ifs and so on)

So being reasonable it is as it should be.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
AMD = drivers cannot improve squat

NVidia = driver can give 30% plus
Click to expand...


Who is saying that? I'm tired of the driver excuses. Excuses are like my cornhole, nothing good comes from it. If AMD releases magical drivers months from now then the card should be re-reviewed.
 
durquavian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Money simply never has anything to do with the reviews we write. HardOCP influences so many buying decisions because we simply tell it like it is. If we wrote hardware reviews with any sort of focus on monetary payout, that would simply be bad for our readers, and that is not what we do.

If you do not like our level of professionalism, or lack thereof, then so be it. We are who we are and we are not changing after being in this business for 18 years. However, you thoughts are noted.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
AMD = drivers cannot improve squat

NVidia = driver can give 30% plus
Click to expand...

Historically, that's not always true.

X800XT, slower than 6800ultra on launch, by end of driver development was faster..
Not the only example also.

2c on Rage;
Was very interested as an AMD/ATi fan, now have to choose 980Ti or 390X for 21:9 as I'm moving country.... 980Ti looks to be the winner.
 
Nenu said:
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.
:p
Click to expand...

So when the 980/70 were released if they would have compared them to O/C'd 290/X (which judging from the 390/X they would have meet/beat them) everyone would have been OK with that? Somehow, I think not. :p
 
Dayaks said:
% 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...
Click to expand...

It was the double standard in the subjective analysis that was being noted, not the %.
 
Rizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

GPU's aren't a religion, but to some they are their livelihood. There are real people who's lives are effected by what the press has to say about these GPU's. Fair is fair, but when the tone puts something in the wrong light for no good reason, some people are going to take notice and be critical.
 
So Relayer would you care the same amount for NViidia's employees? Why the double standard. I don't believe an ounce of what you said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top