Do you agree with Hardocp?

AMD's GPU program for the first time has truly reminded us of its CPU program.

  • Total voters
    372
Rauelius said:
I wonder how it would have reviewed if it were the $500 card it should have been?
Click to expand...

Would have been reviewed the same, except on the highly recommended list due to price to performance vs NV.
 
I personally think that Fury suffers more from a bad marketing strategy rather than being a bad product. All of the marketing from AMD indicated that they had a Nvidia killer on their hands. So they set the bar really high and continued to do so even after their "gaming event".

They then failed to meet those expectations so people are (rightfully) disappointed that the card is "just" competitive with the 980ti. Looking at the card itself, it's got some really cool features. The build quality looks first rate, the water cooler performs really well and is quiet, etc. etc.

But it's the fact that it doesn't meet the lofty expectations set by AMD itself that makes the card look like a failure.
 
Seems like it, the way Fury is panning out it share a lot in common with their CPU stuff over the past few years. Constant iteration on a slower architecture, hyping up the product as best they can prior to launch and coming in with lower performance to their primary competitor.
 
They probably thought the 980 Ti was just going to be higher-binned 980 chips like some of the rumors were saying. It was clear at Computex that something was amiss at AMD.
 
1186 said:
I personally think that Fury suffers more from a bad marketing strategy rather than being a bad product.
Click to expand...


It's like a twisted alternate history repeat of the Radeon 4870. Had the 4870 launched at the same $450 as the GTX260, as opposed to less than half the price of nVidia's $650 GTX280.
 
HardOCP reviews things differently: they review based on game experience. Who cares I the card is 10% faster at 4K when you are talking about ~30 vs 33 FPS? It's still unplayable. HardOCP compares the settings that can be enabled whilst sustaining playable FPS, not the FPS. Even in the Apples to Apples, the Nvidia runs away.

I personally am disappointed in AMD, HardOCP is not to blame.
 
The Fury X as it stands today is an abject failure at $650. It lacks overclocking headroom, it gets creamed up to 20%+ in game tests by a stock 980 Ti, lacks HDMI 2.0 and only has 4 GB vram which has already shown limitations in testing. It is not a competitor for 980 Ti but rather the 980.

If AMD had skipped HBM entirely and instead made a regular Fury with HDMI 2.0 and 8 GB GDDR5 for $500, it likely would have beaten the 980 enough to make it an attractive purchase and alternative. However, as it stands right now, I doubt AMD can afford to drop the Fury X's price by another $100 so the only hope they have now is to sell defective Fury X's as Fury for $500 and hope they can keep up with the 980. If they can manage that, then everyone will forget about Fury X and focus on Fury's price/performance value.

Finally, if we all learned something today, it's that none of the current gen cards are really ready for playable 4K without going SLI/Crossfire. In a situation like that, the Fury X is very badly positioned because of it's 4 GB VRAM and secondly the inconvenience of having to make room for two AIO's in your system (or possibly three as many people use CPU AIO now).


TaintedSquirrel said:
AMD community lashing out.

Some Fury X benchmarks compared (curiously different results)
Click to expand...

What else are they going to do? They'll cherry pick results and the one's that don't fit are somehow in NVIDIA's pocket. Same old shit.
 
5150Joker said:
If AMD had skipped HBM entirely and instead made a regular Fury with HDMI 2.0 and 8 GB GDDR5 for $500, it likely would have beaten the 980 enough to make it an attractive purchase and alternative.
Click to expand...
If AMD did that the card would use up to 350W and you'd call it a failure because it's literally an oven.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
If AMD did that the card would use up to 350W and you'd call it a failure because it's literally an oven.
Click to expand...

As long as it kept the AIO it would be fine.I still think Fury will be AMD's ace in the hole as long as it has a good air cooler and >980 performance at $500. The true test will be if the air cooled Fury holds up at 1440p and below since 4K is pretty pointless for all cards below 980 Ti/Titan X.
 
Last edited:
Drop the card to become a contender with the 970 for $300. They would fly off the shelves
 
I said no because I never saw them releasing something inferior to Intel for the same price. IMO most of what they released this generation should be priced about $100 cheaper.
 
I think it's a little premature, though not unwarranted: the similarities to the move from K10 to Bulldozer are more than a bit obvious. K10 was great, but getting a little long in the tooth while Bulldozer was talked up, and when it finally came out, well, we all know how that worked out. Not bad, but underperforming compared to what Intel was cooking up. A few refreshes helped, but ultimately the widely-expressed opinion was/is: as budget parts, they're not bad, but not really worth it for the high end.

Instead I'd like to think that Fiji will end up more like the 2900XT - at first we were all "meh" and then the refresh came out in the form of the 3870 and we were all "whoah!"

The first product with a bunch of new technology is always going to be a bit rough; on top of that, there was a lot of hype from AMD and from other sources. That makes it doubly disappointing to see these results, and unfortunately, it also makes it difficult to see how they're going to get a good refresh out of it if no one wants to buy the new shineys.

TL;DR: I chose "don't know" because I think it's too early to make that call.
 
All this shit reminds me of the news whereas each release/year goes by everything gets more and more polarized and extreme.
 
Even at a lower price point, they would still have to be called on their marketing. If they knew they would have to price it lower, though, they probably wouldn't have screamed "4k" and "fastest".
 
Did anyone tell AMD that the bitcoin craze was over and that they need to price their cards based on gaming performance and not mining performance?
 
fanboy said:
Well I have looked at 2 other reviews of the card beside this one and I don't understand the limited testing done by Hardopc and mainly the 4 games that Fury X was weak at but the other sites shows a lot more game testing like HardwareCanucks which showed the games Fury X was strong at and not the let down that Hard has shown it to be.

Really disappointed but not by AMD.
Click to expand...

So... "HardOCP should've picked games that Fury X was good at". That it?

That's called pulling punches. And the moment they start doing that, they lose cred. They chose a cross section of popular games, and the result was essentially the same no matter the game.
 
I would say that the PR/Marketing of the the AMD graphics groups surely looks like that of their CPU division. Oversell and under-deliver.

In a nutshell AMD just isn't very good at being a company. The engineers are of course gods. The stuff these guys do blows my mind, but the rest of the clowns there from software to marketing to management really seem to be phoning it in.
 
FWIW, I wrote that line in the conclusion. So you can put that on me, not Brent.
 
AVogel said:
I would say that the PR/Marketing of the the AMD graphics groups surely looks like that of their CPU division. Oversell and under-deliver.

In a nutshell AMD just isn't very good at being a company. The engineers are of course gods. The stuff these guys do blows my mind, but the rest of the clowns there from software to marketing to management really seem to be phoning it in.
Click to expand...


Well the marketing group did overly good job :D, it would work if the product lived up to the numbers they showed or close to them, it just craps on their customers when they over hype something.
 
IMHO

Their CPU division hasn't been relevant in years unless you count their EPU's, and no enthusiast is building systems around AMD EPU's. Their FX series and everything since has been nothing but cheap costing poorer performing alternatives to everything Intel's come out with since the Core 2 days. Everything AMD (CPU div) comes out with now has clock for clock less performance at higher temperatures and worse power consumption comparatively. They've had how many product cycles and failed lines now yet the excuses and future promises keep rolling. I'd say this is going on....5+ years now of letdowns and disappointments for everyone who wants competition. When AMD's quads and hexas are being brow-beaten by Intel's cheap chips with 1/2 to 1/3 the [hand quote] real cores [/hand quote] with the G3258 - you know you have a problem.

Their GPU division started getting some momentum (from when it was beaten at the woodshed by the 8800GT) with the 4000 series especially but has since been a mess (in the least) or an abject failure (in the worst). The R7 260 and R9 cards were decent cards compared to nV's offerings mainly because they undercut them on cost; however, the better performance continued falling in nV's camp. Time and time again they overpromise and underdeliver, and they're finally essentially matching their CPU division with the same issues - a cheaper product that runs hotter and consumes more power.

The lines have crossed; there is no doubt about it. AMD's GPU division has now joined their CPU division in problems and excuses.

I WANT AMD to compete again; I WANT AMD to come out with the next X2 line that kicks Intel in the ass and makes them do something drastic (like Core 2). I WANT them to come out with a GPU that not only beats nV, it costs less, performs better, and runs AS COOL (if not cooler) with equal or less power consumption. I love all the fanboys with the excuses "any enthusiast does not care about power consumption", bzzt wrong. It's a comparison point. Whether anyone "cares" about it is irregardless; it's an area that AMD has failed miserably on and completely ignored, meanwhile the competition is doing more with less while AMD is sitting there twiddling their thumbs while raking more coals into the furnace.
 
FuryX failed to live up to its hype but it's not a failure as a card, overpriced as it seems. The Bulldozer just failed.

That, I think, is the key difference between the two.
 
I did not say the situation was identical, I simply said for the first time it reminded me of the CPU program. Over-promise, under-deliver. Don't read too much into the statement.
 
Amd failed in like 3 big ways with this card imo. First it was late, 2nd was 4 gigs of vram is just not enough for a "flagship" card in today's world, last of all no hdmi 2.0+. <-- 3 big reasons why i call this a fail for Amd. Those are not ranked in any specific order. [H]ard ran all the test and the data does not lie, they call it like they see it. Well done to Kyle, Brent, and the rest of the team.
 
Nauseous said:
Amd failed in like 3 big ways with this card imo. First it was late, 2nd was 4 gigs of vram is just not enough for a "flagship" card in today's world, last of all no hdmi 2.0+. <-- 3 big reasons why i call this a fail for Amd. Those are not ranked in any specific order. [H]ard ran all the test and the data does not lie, they call it like they see it. Well done to Kyle, Brent, and the rest of the team.
Click to expand...

ALL they had to do was follow the Radeon 4870 model, price it HALF of nVidia's top of the line model. For the 4870 it was the $650 GTX280, for the Fury-X it's the $1,000 Titan-X. Imagine if AMD had the audacity to release the 4870 at the same $450 as the GTX260? It would have made much less of a splash on the market and would have done nothing to help AMD's slide into irrelevancy at the time.

AMD is either run by insane people, stupid people, or they are conspiring with nVidia again and price-fixing the market...in which case AMD is run by insanely stupid people.
 
Said on reveal:
"Let me introduce Fury the fastest radeon GPU in the world. Which everyone reported as the fastest GPU in the worldddd..." you can say fastest radeon gpu we've built... or something like that,but not in the world.
"It is a overclockers dream " (Engineer said it on reveal but still TBD if it ocs more with volts)

Graph in press guide @ 4k not matching the reviews ppl were gonna see from review samples.

AMD, on release..... just don't ....do these things anymore.... don't.....let your product do the talking....shhhh shhhhh .... it's ok.... it's ok. Last chance, but if you pull this shit with Zen... we're gonna retire you to greener pastures. :p
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
Would have pushed pricing down on the nV side.
Click to expand...

This may be the biggest nail in AMD's coffin. So many people wanted Fury to be good, not so they could buy it.....but to get a price cut on buying a NVIDIA card.

Even if Fury was faster, people were hoping to get a discount on a 980ti.
 
Wow. I expected it to be way overpriced...but I did not expect it to be way under-performing too! Was thinking the Nano might be interesting...but this makes things look bad for all AMD cards for a long time to come. In fact, it makes things look bad for AMD for consumer products period. Which is really bad, since Nvidia is ruthless with consumers.
 
I love AMD cards, i jut bought an R9 380 for my X5650 rig vs a 960, figured why not... but this is getting annoying AMD...
 
I'll vote after new drivers and a voltage unlock come out for it. I wanna see what the card is ultimately capable of.

I hope this lights a fire under their asses so the next 'new' card will stir things up. I want to see things advance in leaps and bounds. Not crawl along like road kill about to die.
 
Those stats roughly look like the breakdown of the general gpu marketshare of nvidia/amd.


Surprise surprise.


my main regret of the fury x performance levels is that I wanted to post a graphic of prime/jokers tears being used as the coolant for the fury x cards as it slapped around the 980ti, but that was not to come to pass. And it saddens me. I want to see them cry and amd has denied me my chance.

WHY AMD !!!!!!!
 
although i have an all AMD system, i have to agree with their review! i'm trying to help AMD by buying their products, but my patience is running out, i give them one more chance with Zen and the next GPU, then i'm off again to NV.
 
It's not as bad as the CPU situation just yet. This was a marketing failure above anything else. Also Maxwell is a very impressive chip and not easy to beat. It's not like nvidia is just coasting like Intel.
 
tybert7 said:
Those stats roughly look like the breakdown of the general gpu marketshare of nvidia/amd.


Surprise surprise.


my main regret of the fury x performance levels is that I wanted to post a graphic of prime/jokers tears being used as the coolant for the fury x cards as it slapped around the 980ti, but that was not to come to pass. And it saddens me. I want to see them cry and amd has denied me my chance.

WHY AMD !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe next time champ, keep hope alive.
 
[H] was harsh and for good reason, they are known for it. Pull no punches, play no favorites.

With that said they never said it was a bad product, or a flop, just poorly priced and late to the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top