FuryX completely abandoned now, barely matching the 1060 or 580!

Discussion in 'AMD Flavor' started by Hameeeedo, Sep 15, 2019.

  1. harmattan

    harmattan [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,242
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    And whatever happened to AMD's magic frame bufffer efficiency that was supposed to make 4GB HBR as good as 8GB DDR4?

    Don't ever believe anyone if they tell you a lower framebuffer is as good as a higher one. With every GPU coupled with a deficient amount of VRAM, AMD or nV (and their army of schills) purport they have some sort of voodoo that nullifies the issue -- and it never does. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Same thing happened with 4870 256MB, 7800 GT, 780 ti 3GB, GTX 970 3.5GB... Don't believe it.
     
  2. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Gawd

    Messages:
    556
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    I don't beleive it, hence I'm not the one upset ;). I bought my fury tri-x for $200... It's still as fast as an rx580 or 1060... Which are selling for as much as I paid years ago. I'm not upset one bit about it, and the fury nano in my itx case is a great card for small builds. I got a great deal on it and I know what it can and can't do.
     
    noko likes this.
  3. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Is the Fury X really -50% in assassins creed and -90% in Wolfenstein? I don’t care about a 10% drift but -50 and -90% would be alarming.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    AceGoober, Hameeeedo and 5150Joker like this.
  4. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,440
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    That 90% hit, if true, would be because the limits of the 4GB HBM memory were hit. If you lower one setting like AA it would be back in line. From my own experience with the Fury when you got that limit of HBM it’s a steep steep nosedive on performance, but lowering a single setting to reduce VRAM usage usually put it well back into the mix with a single monitor resolution. For instance at my 7680x1440 resolution with 2015 Star Wars Battlefront, I could run medium settings or a mostly high mixture at 70FPS range. If I toggled to all high, I would drop to 10-15FPS.
     
    Chimpee, 5150Joker, Ready4Dis and 2 others like this.
  5. Ready4Dis

    Ready4Dis Gawd

    Messages:
    556
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Run it at a setting that let's it within limits and it's fine. Once it has to use system ram... All bets are off.
     
  6. singe_101

    singe_101 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,088
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Can I get 2019 analysis of the 7870 XT Tahiti cards? Not Pitcairn. /s
     
  7. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Yeah, I figured it was something like that with VRAM. I clicked on the link but my phone doesn’t translate it.

    This thread should be named the Roy/Raja era of lies or something.

    It highlights not to trust corporations (nVidia or AMD) is what OP reminds me. The Fury X VRAM underplaying (optimize drivers or what have you), pump issues, intentionally inaccurate benchmarks, ect. nVidia has their own fair share.

    On the bright side I don’t think we’ve seen any nonsense since AMD cleaned house. I respect that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  8. Hameeeedo

    Hameeeedo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    The regular GTX 980 has only 4GB yet it's faster in those titles as well, so VRAM alone doesn't explain it.
     
  9. PontiacGTX

    PontiacGTX Gawd

    Messages:
    711
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    it is called HBCC,also what? why do you compare DDR4 to HBR? what HBR? HBM you mean
     
  10. vegeta535

    vegeta535 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,262
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    The point of these thread is about how everyone claimed AMD cards get better later on and how Nvidia was supposedly know to regress over time. The truth is neither did that.
     
    GoldenTiger, Hameeeedo and Dayaks like this.
  11. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,440
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    come on man.

    you know better than this and are just trolling.

    It's QUITE obvious that the 4GB of video RAM is a problem with any of the 4GB cards - including the 980. Unless you are seriously suggesting a 980ti is almost twice as fast as a 980.



    upload_2019-9-17_14-8-7.png


    In fact when you throw your link into google translator you learn the following:

    При разрешении 1920х1080 потребление ОЗУ у системы видеокартой с 4-мя гигабайтами 9100 мегабайт, с 6-ю гигабайтами 7000 мегабайт, с 8-ю гигабайит 7400 мегабайт, с 11-ю гигабайтами 7700 мегабайт и с 16-ю гигабайтами 7300 мегабайт.

    translates to:

    With a resolution of 1920 × 1080, the system consumes RAM with a video card with 4 gigabytes of 9100 megabytes, with 6 gigabytes of 7000 megabytes, with 8 gigabytes of 7400 megabytes, with 11 gigabytes of 7700 megabytes and with 16 gigabytes of 7300 megabytes.


    Which correlates to this chart. You can see that 4GB graphics cards use 9GB of system RAM (which is more than any other card VRAM size or resolution requires with the exception of 4GB at 1440p or 4K), which obviously indicates a massive amount of RAM caching from the video card to the System RAM - which with the Fury X required a very unique driver instruction set to be efficient. You can argue that's a frustration with the engineering of the card, but you can't argue that the 980 at 4GB performs significantly better. Both are hit hard by their 4GB VRAM limitation on this particular game.

    upload_2019-9-17_14-12-24.png
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    blackmomba, N4CR, TurboGLH and 5 others like this.
  12. Hameeeedo

    Hameeeedo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Maybe in Wolfenstein, but other games don't exhibit the same issue. Ace Combat, Assassin's Creed, Assetto Corsa .. etc ..
     
  13. crazycrave

    crazycrave Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    This 290x is only a collector's item to me now but a rare look at an untouched card as never been apart or flashed .. just gamed and never mined on .. It's limit is the 4Gb memory buffer size of Hawaii seems to not matter with a Ryzen 3600 pushing it on driver 19.9.2 .

     
  14. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,215
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Strange Bridgade isn’t exactly a demanding game. You only need 2-3GB at 1080p... might as well run Minesweeper and proclaim it’s doing great.
     
    AceGoober and GoldenTiger like this.
  15. crazycrave

    crazycrave Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    494
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Maybe because the game is not built to run like thrash .. but if you want demanding then start at Ultra 1080p take that thing called resolution scaling up to say 120% plus some as It will make your video card feel it .
     
  16. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Wow you really love that site. You wouldn't have any others you bothered to compare with? Fury hasn't suddenly become bad, nor the 980ti suddenly good. Is AMD prioritizing drivers for the latest and greatest on this card? Nope.
     
  17. FlawleZ

    FlawleZ Gawd

    Messages:
    810
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    smh Hameeeedo is still making threads about this? I know the Fury X hooked up with your mom and all, but let it go man. It's 2019.
     
    N4CR, Kardonxt, TurboGLH and 7 others like this.
  18. filip

    filip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,801
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    So AMD became Nvidia that should be good news, no?
     
  19. rgMekanic

    rgMekanic [H]ard|News Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    I didnt even need to click to know who the OP was going to be
     
  20. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,830
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    OP sounds so excited, too... Lol.
     
    AceGoober, Red Falcon and Archaea like this.
  21. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,275
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013


    Negative, Ghost Rider. 9700 Pro owns that spot.
     
  22. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,440
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    3DFX Orchid Righteous owns the spot.
     
    AceGoober and Maddness like this.
  23. Maddness

    Maddness [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,209
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    I had me one of those back in the day. Was so mind blowing playing Quake in 3d.
     
  24. PontiacGTX

    PontiacGTX Gawd

    Messages:
    711
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    yes why not compare a 4years old architecture which weakness was the geometry processing in 2019 games,then these 2019 games need a lot more vram than 2015's titles when R9 FURY (x) was doing just fine

    AMD made GCN thinking on compute workloads and/or light geometry workload https://wccftech.com/fallout-4-nvidia-gameworks/
     
    FlawleZ likes this.
  25. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    this is what I love of hypocrisy, specially of this forum, when Nvidia release a new line of GPUS and focus optimizations for that architecture then Nvidia its evil because it abandon its loyal customers and on purpose it stop optimizing old generations of gpus or even gimp it to make current gpus more appealing..

    this fury series scenario was the same that happened with nvidia GTX 700 series, gtx 780 and 780ti gpus once competed against r9 290 and 290x gpus, then years later we got people everywhere talking about AMD fine fine wine and how the 290x that once rivaled the 780ti were now competing with the gtx 980, however nobody ever expected maxwell would age so amazingly over time destroying the Finewine conspiracy as gtx 980 and 970 still acompete against 290x and 290 respectively but now the gtx 980ti out performing in every possible scenario to the Fury X.. uuuuhhh praise to AMD for keeping support of older GPUS, shame on Nvidia for focus on current tech, now we should praise AMD for abandoning certain lines of GPUS in order to keep focus on more viable and profitable series.. lol I love that kind of hypocrisy because yes, we know what are we buying today and no matter the future, what matter its the today performance, after all, we buy for what they were worth today at the time of purchase.. right?

    truth is, AMD had actually no reason to stopping support on Fury Lines as Polaris its essentially polaris at the same way essentially its Vega without the enlarged pipeline for higher clocks.. (as it was proven by reviews).. same reason AMD have no reason on stop optimizing Vega Series (including VII) just because of navi...
     
    Hameeeedo and GoldenTiger like this.
  26. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Wrong... 9700 pro, ok, was a big jump in performance over the 8500, and it performed typically 20% over the nvidia's geforce 4 Ti 4600 and in some very specific scenarios with high AA and AF levels it was even able to perform 50% faster than the geforce4 Ti, but also didn't helped that nvidia's FX lines where completely crap... however the life of the 9700 PRO (or even the refreshed 9800 PRO versions) were of about 3 to 4 years... HD7970 was launched between December 2011 and January 2012 we are speaking of over 7 years of amazing life, the 7970 it's still a capable GPU for 1080P resolutions, nothing ever have lasted that long being a playable GPU on modern tittles, only I think Hawaii will be able to touch and keep that crown..
     
    N4CR, FlawleZ and alxlwson like this.
  27. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    FuryX was set to best the GTX980 also with 4GB. And it largely did. Nvidia dropped the GTX980ti to counter it and it did its job well.
     
    FlawleZ likes this.
  28. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    so... the 650$ fury X was launched in 2015 to best the 499$ GTX 980?.. when already had the 290X competing with it since 2014? having already in the market the Titan X? hardly believable, if everyone remember correctly Fury X was meant to rival the Titan X being the second Titan killer.. (first one was the 290X rivaling the vanilla GTX Titan before the 780ti was launched)

    GTX 980 wasn't a 4K GPU, fury X was marketed as the best 4K GPU, in fact, at the Fury X launch event AMD also launched the refresh of the Hawaii GPUS r9 390 and 390X to compete better against gtx 970 and 980, marking those gpus also as 4K oriented segment and only for that usage... which also was weird as r9 390 series all had 8GB vRAM while Fiji only had 4GB, yeah at that time the misleading marketing was at full blast telling everyone how 4GB HBM was different than GDDR5 sizes as it was some kind of cache nasa space technology lol haha.. anyone remember?

    again, nope if you think fury x was meant to compete with gtx 980 while having the 12GB Titan X in the market you are wrong, remember. Fury X was meant to be a 850$ Titan X killer. the only reason while fury X launched at 649$ was because nvidia launched first the 980Ti at 649$ and fucked all AMD plans..
     
    Hameeeedo and GoldenTiger like this.
  29. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Ya HBM missed the boat. Are you freaking out over marketing at the time or the reality of the situation. FuryX was designed to compete with the GTX980.
    Yes AMD "fine wine" had the 290X/390X competing later on, but that wasn't the reality at the time. AMD was stuck in their marketing at the time. The tech rift that was DDR5 and HBM early adopter.
    At the time the [H] review showed that 4GB wasn't too limiting at 4K. It did quite well surprisingly. It is all down to optimization of the drivers and apparently 4K on Fury on new games isn't where they place resources.
    FuryX as a Titian killer? Don't know about that LOL! Not even the hottest head AMD fanboi pushed that shit.
    Wasn't you right?

    PS-sorry for saying "at the time" too many times.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
    Red Falcon likes this.
  30. Red Falcon

    Red Falcon [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,991
    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    If the Fury X had been equiped with more VRAM, it would have held up longer, but 4GB in 2015 was pretty decent at the time (early 4K).
    Alas, it does not have more than 4GB VRAM, thus limiting it in just about everything now - less a limitation of the GPU and more a limit of the VRAM itself.

    The GPU itself would still be limited now, though, since technology marches on, and to no one's surprise, a high-end GPU from 2015 barely competes with a mid-range GPU from 2019.
    Same could be said with comparing GPUs from 2011 to GPUs from 2015.

    Due to the higher memory data transfer rates of HBM, it was a bit more efficient that GDDR5 (at the time) and could push textures and data slightly better, making it more similar to a 5GB GDDR5 equiped GPU.
    It was still VRAM limited in games like DOOM 2016 in nightmare mode, which required at least 5GB VRAM, which the Fury X did not have and thus could not push, at least not natively without digging into shadow/RAM.

    Hot damn, AMD did state that 4GB HBM was just as good as 8GB GDDR5.
    Thanks for the video, Araxie.

    Also, AMD never said that, and I don't remember seeing anyone say that it was as efficient as 8GB VRAM (assuming you meant GDDR5 and not DDR4).
    That's more than a bit of an embellishment.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
    PontiacGTX likes this.
  31. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    [H] review show totally opposed conclusion to yours.

    https://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11

    if you like to read there are 2 good threads about the Fury X Titan killer (that include being 980ti killer)

    https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-r...ntly-faster-than-the-gtx-980ti-at-4k.1865880/

    https://hardforum.com/threads/fury-x-benchmarked-4k-via-amd.1865813/page-2
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
    Hameeeedo, Dayaks and GoldenTiger like this.
  32. Araxie

    Araxie [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,380
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    oh...

     
    Kardonxt and Red Falcon like this.
  33. The Cobra

    The Cobra 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,624
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    WTF do you expect for a card that is 5+ years old? Come on....still a decent card though. This is a troll post.
     
  34. Rvenger

    Rvenger [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012

    Hence why we don't see Huddy talking anymore since Ryzen/Vega came about.
     
  35. ManofGod

    ManofGod [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,944
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Well, he was sort of right, in the short term. However, the maintenance and support required to maintain that ability was definitely not worth it and eventually, in the long term, would be limiting. That said, more is always better, anyways.
     
  36. amenx

    amenx Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    314
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Benches a bit old (Nov 2017), but fwiw, TPU performance summary of 18 games @ 4k. I dont think the FuryX or 980ti show up in any recent TPU reviews.

    I often reference TPU since they use they bench more games than other reviews, and give summary of perf across all resolutions. Seems FuryX doing OK with 4gb @ 4k. Of course, the 980ti has far greater OC potential.
    Review link: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-ti/30.html


    perfrel_3840_2160.png
     
    funkydmunky and FlawleZ like this.
  37. Hameeeedo

    Hameeeedo Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    old review, testing 2016 games also not retesting games or cards .. the situation has changed considerably since 2017, 980Ti went full blast ahead ..



    [BabelTech] AMD’s “fine wine” theory has apparently not turned out so well for the Fury X.

    https://babeltechreviews.com/amds-fine-wine-revisited-the-fury-x-vs-the-gtx-980-ti/3/

    [BabelTech] The GTX 980 Ti is now even faster than the Fury X for the majority of our games than when we benchmarked it about 2 years ago

    https://babeltechreviews.com/the-gtx-1070-versus-the-gtx-980-ti/3/
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
    Dayaks likes this.
  38. primetime

    primetime [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,025
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    pretty much No One here expected the FuryX to age super well....I skipped right past it to an 8gb frame buffer and never looked back. lol 7970-rx580-vega64
     
    Dayaks and Maddness like this.
  39. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,864
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Sorry, 7970 is king. 40% oc on a blower with a modern card, that had amazing compute (even for this day for consumer full precision) and topped nvidia high end for the 2nd last time, grandfather of the almost as legendary Hawaii. It also was around when you could mine btc with a GPU.. The beginning of the mining days.
     
    blackmomba, noko and thebufenator like this.
  40. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Your [H] link wont load. Your thread links are fanboi BS that no one in hind sight should give a shit about. But good job on pulling that waste of garbage up. The community thanks you.