Fury X vs. Titan X benchmark

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bowman15 said:
No, they'd rather sit in here and shit on it rather than see what the rest of the Internet is up to. Apparently HardOCP is the only place you can check out Fury scores, tests and overclocking. Fury can't do 4K, can't overclock, can't unlock memory and apparently there were only about 100 cards for all of North America. The green defense team would rather distort reality and continue the hyperbole. This forum is becoming a joke to other forums too point and laugh at. If AMD fan boys were doing the same thing to NV I'd be calling that crap as well.
Click to expand...

I'll just re-post this for truth.
 
Thankyou, very interesting, this is starting to look like good evidence.
It looks like AMDs PR machine lied, very strange considering if it can so easily been proven.
It is confusing it has taken so long for gaming benchmarks to appear.

The other strange thing is overclocking the memory shows a decent performance increase.
This demonstrates that HBM isnt allowing the GPU to produce its best and its huge bandwidth is of little value.
Would they have been better sticking with DRam?
 
razor1 said:
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~mobile/elec518/readings/DevicesAndCircuits/kim03leakage.pdf

Leakage % changes based on the process used, but the formulas don't change.

This one is better

http://nrl.ece.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/sites/default/papers/TED_Nov_2007.pdf

even better then that

http://www-mtl.mit.edu/researchgroups/icsystems/pubs/journals/2004_narendra_jsscc.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I have now read multiple sources that indicate as temperature rises, so does the leakage.

From one of your articles..

At room temperature, Vθ is about 25 mV; it
increases linearly as temperature increases
Click to expand...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I'm no expert, but I have now read multiple sources that indicate as temperature rises, so does the leakage.

From one of your articles..
Click to expand...



Yep and as leakage increases, more power is necessary to keep cohesion of the signal.

So lets take what we know about Fury X and expected specs of Fury, there is a difference is 12.5% silicon that gets turned off in Fury,
If they are also binning the Fury chip for lower power consumption they will get more savings there, but I think the binned chips will go into nano, that will need it more since the fan cooler is quite small.

The temps of the air cooled Fury chip will be higher, so that kind of negates the power savings of the cut down part hence the same power envelope as the Fury X.
 
Nenu said:
Thankyou, very interesting, this is starting to look like good evidence.
It looks like AMDs PR machine lied, very strange considering if it can so easily been proven.
It is confusing it has taken so long for gaming benchmarks to appear.

The other strange thing is overclocking the memory shows a decent performance increase.
This demonstrates that HBM isnt allowing the GPU to produce its best and its huge bandwidth is of little value.
Would they have been better sticking with DRam?
Click to expand...

You know at some point you still owe me that apology. And again here with HBM OCing.
 
durquavian said:
You know at some point you still owe me that apology. And again here with HBM OCing.
Click to expand...

Its the other way round.
I pulled you up for claiming things as fact when you didnt know for sure and didnt have proof.
You had to get somebody to give you the proof afterwards, so you didnt know for sure before that otherwise you could have presented the proof you already had.

I am only interested in the truth.
When evidence that cannot be confirmed is presented as fact, it is right that somebody makes it clear that proof is required.
This includes HBM.
 
LurkerLito said:
Read the post previous mine that I am replying to, they are advocating Max Settings. So yes the point is completely valid. By setting Nv to max settings means Tessellation is set on and is at a relatively high level. So if you want to make it "fair" then AMD's Tessellation setting should be set to max also which will tank their performance even more. You understand now?
Click to expand...

Yes, you should absolutely benchmark AMD and Nvidia doing the same amount of work with Tesselation, and also everything else, as this is a fair apples-to-apples, scientific comparison. To do otherwise would be like benchmarking two cars in winter, where one has racing slicks and the other winter tires -- the results are not comparable.

If a site wanted to benchmark with the limiter as well, all the power to them so long as they do so only to better inform readers, explicitly point out the cards are not doing the same work, and don't use those results to make conclusions about the card's performance.

As far as the other poster who claims that by default the "limiter is disabled," if that's true then your entire post is completely irrelevant. I was under the impression that AMD's drivers default to "AMD optimized" for tessellation though, so unless that's changed his assertion that the limiter is disabled is not entirely correct. A dynamic setting like "AMD Optimized" absolutely needs to be changed to a static value or you're throwing the very thought of scientific testing out the window. You can't do an objective comparison when you don't know what tessellation level is being selected by the driver on a game to game basis. Bill_d, if the default tessellation setting for AMD hardware has changed away from "AMD Optimized," let me know.
 
I want to offer my sincere apology to torryholt81 for his very well intentioned thread turning into a trolling 5 ring circus. Hopefully when he gets the cards back he will still be willing to do some testing for us but would not blame him in the least if he didn't want to get caught in the crossfire of all the fanboys.
Nenu- wth so you really are not going to apologize to him, pretty dick move there.
 
Nihilus1 said:
"Our Fury X CrossFire results will be up in the next couple of days, so be sure to check them out - because the results, will blow you away." - tweaktown.com

We saw great scaling at 4k. From that statement, I predict the same great scaling with 4k surround.
Click to expand...


Yeah scaling seems to be good with Fury X crossfire
 
spaceace420 said:
I want to offer my sincere apology to torryholt81 for his very well intentioned thread turning into a trolling 5 ring circus. Hopefully when he gets the cards back he will still be willing to do some testing for us but would not blame him in the least if he didn't want to get caught in the crossfire of all the fanboys.
Nenu- wth so you really are not going to apologize to him, pretty dick move there.
Click to expand...

This is why we can't have nice things.
 
Nenu said:
Thankyou, very interesting, this is starting to look like good evidence.
It looks like AMDs PR machine lied, very strange considering if it can so easily been proven.
It is confusing it has taken so long for gaming benchmarks to appear.

The other strange thing is overclocking the memory shows a decent performance increase.
This demonstrates that HBM isnt allowing the GPU to produce its best and its huge bandwidth is of little value.
Would they have been better sticking with DRam?
Click to expand...

I think it's situational, or perhaps there's some synergy between core and HBM OC. As you can see in another site's testing overclocking HBM does almost squat.

3DMarkFSU_HBMOC.jpg


http://www.jagatoc.com/2015/07/short-test-hbm-overclocking-di-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/
 
Hmm, maybe the performance increase is still a hoax from the propaganda machine.
I will await further results, thanks.
 
Nenu said:
Hmm, maybe the performance increase is still a hoax from the propaganda machine.
I will await further results, thanks.
Click to expand...

Not a hoax, just some facts being misrepresented.

The 20% gains from overclocking HBM was sourced from Hardwareinfo.uk, and if you take a minute to actually read:

We set the power limit to maximum, so +50%, as well as changing the speed of our 5960X to the normal 4.5GHz we use in overclock tests.

We ended up being able to change the GPU speeds by 95MHz to 1145 MHz and the memory by 100MHz. The latter seems a bit on the low side, but it is actually 20% on top of the standard frequencies this card uses.

In the end we managed to get a 3DMark Fire Strike score of 16963 points on overclocked settings, a nice increase on the standard 14098 points we achieved.
Click to expand...

20% gain is real, but core also OC's to 1145 MHz, and on top of that. 5960X OC'd from 4 GHZ to 4.5 GHz. The numbers are so obfuscated you can't conclude anything.

The gaming benchmarks were taken from Hardware.fr, and the results show overclocking only HBM provides anywhere from 0.8% to 4.6% gains, so like I said, situation dependent.

getgraphimg.php
 
Nenu said:
Its the other way round.
I pulled you up for claiming things as fact when you didnt know for sure and didnt have proof.
You had to get somebody to give you the proof afterwards, so you didnt know for sure before that otherwise you could have presented the proof you already had.

I am only interested in the truth.
When evidence that cannot be confirmed is presented as fact, it is right that somebody makes it clear that proof is required.
This includes HBM.
Click to expand...

Actual you still do. You haven't proved me wrong yet. And so far everything I stated, I stated where I got it by linking or directing to where I got the info. You claimed I was making it up or rather trying real hard to make it like I said something I didn't. You still owe me the apology.
 
durquavian said:
Actual you still do. You haven't proved me wrong yet. And so far everything I stated, I stated where I got it by linking or directing to where I got the info. You claimed I was making it up or rather trying real hard to make it like I said something I didn't. You still owe me the apology.
Click to expand...

Again you have it backwards, seems to be a recurring theme with you.
I am not the one that made statements as fact without proof, you are.

There is some evidence from a third party, that may or may not be true.
Others third parties have demonstrated the same doesnt happen for them.
There is no proof and even if there was, I owe you nothing.

You stated things as fact when they were not. You should be ashamed for putting up this charade after doing that.
You are asking me for an apology because you think you are right.
You havent been proven right and even if you are, I owe you nothing.
When I asked you for proof you started this immature argument that results in you asking for an apology?
I said there was no proof because there wasnt, and you still dont have any.
"You" should have had proof before you started. Where is it?

HardOCP have stated they havent seen a quality difference.
I havent seen one either.
No doubt [H] will research this, it will be interesting :)
I will accept their findings as proof, whichever way it goes.
Will you?
 
Last edited:
Brent_Justice said:
So, double our workload, and artificially manipulate the experience to our own.

Yeah, no.

I'll stick to letting AMD and NVIDIA provide the gameplay experience they want for their own cards, and we will evaluate that and see which one is better and how they compare.

The reason for using default driver settings has been stated, please reference above posts.
Click to expand...

Yea but i didn't see you guys comment on any IQ differences in the Fury X review. Apparently according to people running both cards who are also not affiliated with review sites there are significant differences between Fury X and Maxwell gpu in terms of image quality.
 
Nenu said:
Its the other way round.
I pulled you up for claiming things as fact when you didnt know for sure and didnt have proof.
You had to get somebody to give you the proof afterwards, so you didnt know for sure before that otherwise you could have presented the proof you already had.

I am only interested in the truth.
When evidence that cannot be confirmed is presented as fact, it is right that somebody makes it clear that proof is required.
This includes HBM.
Click to expand...

English as a third language?

:D
 
I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care about HBM, HDMI versions, overclocking, crossfire, etc. I don't even care about either card, as there is no way I'm spending $650 on 28nm. I do care about the fact that there is an assertion that 2 cards, any 2 cards, that are comparably priced and positioned are possibly giving different visual results when the game settings are the same for each. Please note that I said possibly. That such a thing could happen doesn't really surprise or bother me. That such a thing might not be routinely checked during a review really does. And I do get that whole 'it's a fine line, shades of gray' concept.
 
ROShay said:
I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care about HBM, HDMI versions, overclocking, crossfire, etc. I don't even care about either card, as there is no way I'm spending $650 on 28nm. I do care about the fact that there is an assertion that 2 cards, any 2 cards, that are comparably priced and positioned are possibly giving different visual results when the game settings are the same for each. Please note that I said possibly. That such a thing could happen doesn't really surprise or bother me. That such a thing might not be routinely checked during a review really does. And I do get that whole 'it's a fine line, shades of gray' concept.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No.


http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28276481&postcount=105
 
ROShay said:
I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care about HBM, HDMI versions, overclocking, crossfire, etc. I don't even care about either card, as there is no way I'm spending $650 on 28nm. I do care about the fact that there is an assertion that 2 cards, any 2 cards, that are comparably priced and positioned are possibly giving different visual results when the game settings are the same for each. Please note that I said possibly. That such a thing could happen doesn't really surprise or bother me. That such a thing might not be routinely checked during a review really does. And I do get that whole 'it's a fine line, shades of gray' concept.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this at all. Fair enough with new tech somewhere around the corner it's viable to say that $650 is high for an old tech, but you should care about those things, especially the part where the 2 cards have 2 different qualities of pictures at the same settings, if this turned out to be true (from what I read around the web it's debatable still whether this is legit) I would definitely be factoring this into my final choice. I made my ultimate decision based on all these things and I bought me a MSI 980Ti. And here i was hoping that AMD would smash Nvidia around again.
 
Brent_Justice said:
It is up to AMD and NVIDIA to provide the kind of experience they want out of their cards to gamers. It is our job to evaluate that experience. We take that, at its default, and evaluate the gameplay experience. If we were to change anything in the driver we would be artificially changing that experience and creating an unfair comparison.

To keep it fair, we leave the driver settings alone, and at default, on both AMD and NVIDIA. If we detect some measure of ill looking image quality we bring this to the attention of AMD and NVIDIA.
Click to expand...

That, however, is not how you do proper hardware comparisons. In science, for example, you eliminate every possible variable. If nVidia has a LOD setting of 3, and AMD has a higher quality setting of 0 (I know, totally seems backwards...the best numbers are negative values, LOL!) then you need to change nVidia setting to be better, test, then set them both the to 3 and test again. OR, you can just settle on a set of the smallest degree of adjustments which results in the closest comparable image quality between the cards.

If nVidia loses 8~10% of its performance by matching AMD's default settings, then nVidia's default settings are of a lower quality and are not worthy of being considered as valid for comparisons of hardware (you can turn down AMD's quality as well...:eek:).

Likewise, some people are just interested in maximum framerate, so you will want to degrade AMD's higher quality default settings until they match nVidia's default image quality, and then re-test to see what an AMD card can deliver at the given image quality a user may desire.

Personally, I want the best I can get without fussing about, and AMD's driver defaults are excellent. As long as the game is smooth and the lag is low I can tolerate rather low FPS numbers. My underclocked R9 290 with everything on Ultra (including AA) at 2048x1536@120hz w/ VSync can drop into the 40s, but I find it to be perfectly playable. However, if I reduce the image quality to the level I see in the Titan X screenshots, I find it to be very distracting.
 
I have a R290X and im going to get a GTX980ti this week. Time to upgrade my card. I only game at 1200p hah.

But one of those nice 4k monitors sounds tasty. I just don't want my desktop at 4k.
 
durquavian said:
Go to overclockers.net not UK and the guy posts there about settings. Everything at default except on fury he changes color or something. He made no tweaks to nvcp or in ccc to alter any in game setting.

I asked earlier for OP to look to see if he saw any difference in image quality. I did not tell him what to look for or what vendor. Unfortunately that science experiment is now ruined. One must use default settings if they wish to prove any hanky panky with default drivers. Adjusting settings in ccc or nvcp will invalidate the issue.

Apparently it is well known AMD has better IQ in games. I assume that means at default, whereas adjusting can make them equal.
Click to expand...

You have a habit of claiming your opinions as facts.

You need to bring links, references, stats etc. to the table. This bullshit is getting out of control now.
 
Zuul said:
In before nvidiabots flood the thread with crying and moaning about no overclocks. Any minute now....
Click to expand...

It's from tweaktown - noone takes them seriously outside of bunch of AMD fanatics trying to push their own agenda :p
 
looncraz said:
That, however, is not how you do proper hardware comparisons. In science, for example, you eliminate every possible variable. If nVidia has a LOD setting of 3, and AMD has a higher quality setting of 0 (I know, totally seems backwards...the best numbers are negative values, LOL!) then you need to change nVidia setting to be better, test, then set them both the to 3 and test again. OR, you can just settle on a set of the smallest degree of adjustments which results in the closest comparable image quality between the cards.
Click to expand...
You have to know that there is a quality difference with default driver settings.
If you can provide proof of this, go ahead.
Although that involves scientific method...

If nVidia loses 8~10% of its performance by matching AMD's default settings, then nVidia's default settings are of a lower quality and are not worthy of being considered as valid for comparisons of hardware (you can turn down AMD's quality as well...:eek:).
Click to expand...
If what?
If you replace AMD with NVidia and vice versa, would you make the same statement?
After all, it isnt a factual statement ... is it?

Likewise, some people are just interested in maximum framerate, so you will want to degrade AMD's higher quality default settings until they match nVidia's default image quality, and then re-test to see what an AMD card can deliver at the given image quality a user may desire.
Click to expand...
Imagination isnt the best tool to use for diagnosis.
It hasnt been proven there is a quality difference.

Personally, I want the best I can get without fussing about, and AMD's driver defaults are excellent. As long as the game is smooth and the lag is low I can tolerate rather low FPS numbers. My underclocked R9 290 with everything on Ultra (including AA) at 2048x1536@120hz w/ VSync can drop into the 40s, but I find it to be perfectly playable. However, if I reduce the image quality to the level I see in the Titan X screenshots, I find it to be very distracting.
Click to expand...
The Titan X and the comparison screenshots, were they taken under scientific test conditions?

If you want the best experience without fussing, you will not want to use AMD.
The drivers are not good enough and the high end product doesnt support current and future standards.
Oh and the flagship product doesnt give you the better value.
Not being a fanboy, this is why I am now using an NVidia card again.
 
Nenu said:
You have to know that there is a quality difference with default driver settings.
If you can provide proof of this, go ahead.
Although that involves scientific method...


If what?
If you replace AMD with NVidia and vice versa, would you make the same statement?
After all, it isnt a factual statement ... is it?


Imagination isnt the best tool to use for diagnosis.
It hasnt been proven there is a quality difference.


The Titan X and the comparison screenshots, were they taken under scientific test conditions?

If you want the best experience without fussing, you will not want to use AMD.
The drivers are not good enough and the high end product doesnt support current and future standards.
Oh and the flagship product doesnt give you the better value.
Not being a fanboy, this is why I am now using an NVidia card again.
Click to expand...

Weird i just sold my 970 to get Fury because of the drivers...
 
madgun said:
You have a habit of claiming your opinions as facts.

You need to bring links, references, stats etc. to the table. This bullshit is getting out of control now.
Click to expand...

You need to read and stop being an arrogant negative nancy. Besides that was a post early in the thread. Maybe go back to school and learn reading comprehension and critical thinking neither you seem to have any familiarity with.
 
Nenu said:
You have to know that there is a quality difference with default driver settings.
If you can provide proof of this, go ahead.
Although that involves scientific method...


If what?
If you replace AMD with NVidia and vice versa, would you make the same statement?
After all, it isnt a factual statement ... is it?


Imagination isnt the best tool to use for diagnosis.
It hasnt been proven there is a quality difference.


The Titan X and the comparison screenshots, were they taken under scientific test conditions?

If you want the best experience without fussing, you will not want to use AMD.
The drivers are not good enough and the high end product doesnt support current and future standards.
Oh and the flagship product doesnt give you the better value.
Not being a fanboy, this is why I am now using an NVidia card again.
Click to expand...

YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF.

The drivers are not good enough and the high end product doesnt support current and future standards.


You need to take the same advice I gave Madgun. You both seem to lack even basic skills in written debate and living up to the criteria you give others to live by. And YES you are definitely a fanboy and you must live under a bridge some where.
 
durquavian said:
You need to read and stop being an arrogant negative nancy. Besides that was a post early in the thread. Maybe go back to school and learn reading comprehension and critical thinking neither you seem to have any familiarity with.
Click to expand...

Nice way of deflecting from my point.

I need PROOF to your claims! Nothing short of it.
 
durquavian said:
YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF.

The drivers are not good enough and the high end product doesnt support current and future standards.


You need to take the same advice I gave Madgun. You both seem to lack even basic skills in written debate and living up to the criteria you give others to live by. And YES you are definitely a fanboy and you must live under a bridge some where.
Click to expand...

I wasnt even talking to you but typical response from someone who cant back up his claims which strangely are the same lol.
Its you that lacks the ability to stop claiming things as fact without proof.

How am I a fanboy when my last card was a 290x, 2 before that were 5770 XFire and 2 before that was an X1800.
You dont know what you are talking about on any level, you make it up as you go.

Another typical response from someone who cant back up his claims is to start trolling, the only way you can get satisfaction.
 
durquavian said:
So you cant read? There are posts after that one where I did. But please don't burden yourself with being thorough.
Click to expand...

Dude you call that proof. More like ramblings of a rabid fan boy.

Your opinion or should I say facts are as irrelevant they can be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top