cleveridea
Member
Yeah I dont know if its just effects missing until a patch, but batman looks so superior with nvida effects on than off its ridiculous
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Radeon Fury X review thread
- Thread starter ScepticMatt
- Start date
Yeah I dont know if its just effects missing until a patch, but batman looks so superior with nvida effects on than off its ridiculous
Pagusas
Elden Member
The hell are you talking about, most of us are biting at the bit for 4k Couch gaming, thats what a lot of these cards are being made for. There is a reason Steam made the couch mode.
It is a big deal to a lot of us, and you are way over stating input lag. We already have some decent 4k tv's that handle it well, and for many games like the Witcher it is nowhere near a big deal.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
It isn't an angle, it is a way to... you know... look at the data presented by one of the best review sites out there.
Man that 980ti frametime is gorgeous. The Fury is not bad though.
Damn tough crowd in here. I'm gonna wait for voltage unlocked overclocking results before I decide if it's worth getting rid of my 295X2. Something doesn't add up with the way AMD has been bragging about overclocking given the results most reviewers have seen on stock voltage. If they could get up to 1250-1300MHz that'd be a solid bump.
Is this card not yet compatible with Mantle? I've noticed all tests used DX11 for BF4, and that seems silly given that most of the driver development was on the Mantle side.
Is this card not yet compatible with Mantle? I've noticed all tests used DX11 for BF4, and that seems silly given that most of the driver development was on the Mantle side.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
My primary reason for upgrading is for VR, so I suppose it remains true that I'm better off waiting.
From the PC Perspective review:
Not a good sign when considering the current mindshare situation and AMD's stigma of poor and/or belated driver support. Even if that stigma is unfounded, AMD's marketing team is facing a hell of an uphill battle.
Not a good sign when considering the current mindshare situation and AMD's stigma of poor and/or belated driver support. Even if that stigma is unfounded, AMD's marketing team is facing a hell of an uphill battle.
What an absolute shock that those internal benchmarks turned out to be finely tuned, well polished, horseshit.
The monopoly Nvidia has over quality GPUs is a truly terrible thing for the industry, which makes AMD's continued fumbling and bumbling utterly infuriating.
The monopoly Nvidia has over quality GPUs is a truly terrible thing for the industry, which makes AMD's continued fumbling and bumbling utterly infuriating.
price
erformance is roughly in line with 980ti though. So if the reference 980 is out of your budget, the Fury X is a nice option. £509 in the UK will mean real prices hitting £499 soon enough, which is a reasonable option compared to £550 for a vanilla 980ti, or the £600 for the non-reference coolers.
erformance is roughly in line with 980ti though. So if the reference 980 is out of your budget, the Fury X is a nice option. £509 in the UK will mean real prices hitting £499 soon enough, which is a reasonable option compared to £550 for a vanilla 980ti, or the £600 for the non-reference coolers.all versions for 699 at mindfactory: http://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Grafikkarten+(VGA)/Radeon+R9+Serie/R9+FURY+X.html
cleveridea
Member
yeah feared as much about drivers given we already have games exceeding 4GB VRAM already and 4K just makes it worse
thats a disaster in the making, considering how hard nvidia is gonna push for more memory usage since that's their trump card on both Ti & Titan X
thats a disaster in the making, considering how hard nvidia is gonna push for more memory usage since that's their trump card on both Ti & Titan X
Yikes.
I had a feeling the day I read about the Titan X's specs that AMD was going to have a hell of a time trying to keep up. The 900 series is too efficient per core by comparison to AMD's latest... my only concern at this point is whether Maxwell will age as poorly as Kepler.
4000 GCN cores and barely faster than a 980 in practice. AMD is going to be in a lot of trouble once 14nm rolls around and core counts get higher.
I had a feeling the day I read about the Titan X's specs that AMD was going to have a hell of a time trying to keep up. The 900 series is too efficient per core by comparison to AMD's latest... my only concern at this point is whether Maxwell will age as poorly as Kepler.
4000 GCN cores and barely faster than a 980 in practice. AMD is going to be in a lot of trouble once 14nm rolls around and core counts get higher.
NaDannMaGoGo
Member
Fuck, that's simply not good enough. They really needed to one-up Nvidia.
If AMD needs indeed to dedicate time to optimize the drivers for every game, it's doomed (with the current level of support that AMD provides).
cleveridea
Member
price
The problem though is that they have already publically mentioned they need to optimise the drivers per game since the 4GB is a limitation
I'd be way more confident that games work, and work when released on nvida. As someone who only upgrades my PC after several years, I'd be too concerned with games become even more demanding of VRAM over time and would choose 980 Ti (I think 970 is best price performance wise)
why would you want to downgrade?
oh boy.
that will be interessting.
did they expand there driver division?
Sir Abacus
Member
Not a good sign considering AMD's current "whenever we get around to it" Crossfire profile support. Compared to Nvidia who drop updated profiles through Geforce Experience trivially.
You cannot simply compare core counts across architectures. Also I should note that 14nm probably won't increase core counts initially, and they will only get more efficient with die sizes will decreasing once again. Another thing is that these cards will be the last GCN 1.x cards, next year their GPUs will be based upon GCN 2.0 (meaning also that this generation will be Kepler'ed by AMD).
Irobot82
Member
I find this suspect, AMD did a great job fixing their drivers back in the first GCN days. They still gain performance improvements.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
That £509 price is why Nvidia sacrificed their £800 flagship to panic launch the 980ti.
It'll be interesting to see what the AIB's can do with the non X (Air) variant.
Cunt retailers are fucking up the launch.
It'll be interesting to see what the AIB's can do with the non X (Air) variant.
Cunt retailers are fucking up the launch.
Multi-GPU brings with it its own drawbacks. More input lag, inconsistent support, Mantle is rarely supported, etc. If Fury X is 85% of a 295X2 I'd consider swapping. I play at 3440x1440 so I don't need as much raw power as someone at say, 4K would.
I don't feel its hyperbole at all. Card is a disappointment in everything except thermals.
price
You can get a vanilla 980ti for £509.99
You can get a non ref 980ti for £529.99 and comes a free Batman game, this was priced £499.99 two days ago.
Price Wars!
Fury X to be £449.99 soon.
Hardly a panic launch. It was 99% likely to have been a deliberate strategy. And a smart one. Get the Titan X 'best of the best' buyers in early. Wait til a few weeks before AMD launch their cards, anticipate pricing and then launch your more gaming orientated flagship title at an appropriate price. Keep calm that AMD isn't gonna outperform what you brought out and then revel in a job well done.
On the plus side, this means that games that they do specifically support might well get a nice performance increase over what a 'standard' result would be, giving it a strong lead in these games.From the PC Perspective review:
Not a good sign when considering the current mindshare situation and AMD's stigma of poor and/or belated driver support. Even if that stigma is unfounded, AMD's marketing team is facing a hell of an uphill battle.
Potentially...
Barely faster than 980 is as much hyperbole as saying the Titan X is barely faster than the Fury X at 1080p.
Tiger Direct inexplicably has it for $530. I don't know if it's a mistake or what. Follow the link to check it out for yourself. At $650 it's tough, at $530 it's pretty freaking good.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3ayb8v/visiontek_radeon_r9_fury_x_graphic_card_529_649/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3ayb8v/visiontek_radeon_r9_fury_x_graphic_card_529_649/
jfoul
Member
The Radeon R9 Fury X is very competitive with the GTX980ti @ 4K & 1440p, but the 1080p numbers are disappointing. I think the Fury X will have better frame numbers and OC potential over time, but they should have been ready to go at release. Maybe AMD should have just released the Fury X, Fury and Nano at the same time in mid July with more mature drivers. Right now, it's hard to recommend a competitive card with potential, over a card that has great drivers that already has huge OC headroom.
NVIDIA did not develop the game/engine or port it to PC dude...they are a partner with them but they are not responsible for the quality of the product. Use some common sense.
With gameworks features on or off it doesn't matter the PC port is garbage.
Meh I suppose it's more a personal preference thing. Input lag annoys me, especially on FPS games.
I own a 34 inch 21.9 monitor so it's worthless me buying a 4k TV. Still is a daft move on AMD's part not to make the HDMI 2.0 compliant. The 30hz issues over HDMI affect these monitors as well. Thankfully it also has displayport.
Yeah. While the 290X didn't blow away everything else like the titan it did match it and the R9 290 was insane for 399 back then. This isn't really a much better deal or a better performing card.
I've had very poor experiences trying to get Tiger Direct to honor stuff like this. It's usually more of a hassle than it's worth.
jim2point0
Banned
Interesting. I'm reading the Guru3D review first, as I tend to like their write-ups.
in GTA5, the FuryX loses to the 980TI at 2560x1440.
But comes VERY close at 4K
Is that the case in most reviews?
All in all, it's not the beast I expected it to be... and especially not at that price.
in GTA5, the FuryX loses to the 980TI at 2560x1440.
But comes VERY close at 4K
Is that the case in most reviews?
All in all, it's not the beast I expected it to be... and especially not at that price.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
Sorry....but why is UK so much cheaper than sweden when it comes to gpus and tvs? Is it because they order much more there?
The HardOCP review is very scathing, and I tend to trust their results more as they don't use canned benchmarks.
At 1440p, the 980 Ti is 15-20% faster is what I'm seeing from that review, and in BF4 it was a whopping 33% faster though it seems to be an anomaly considering the rest of the results.
The lead diminishes a lot when you move to 4K, but the Ti still has a 4-8% lead there, and some games that use a lot of VRAM like Dying Light seem to favor the Ti by quite a bit.
This card should be priced closer to the 980, it doesn't compete with the Ti from what I'm seeing. Seriously disappointing as the 290X gave Titan a run for its money.
At 1440p, the 980 Ti is 15-20% faster is what I'm seeing from that review, and in BF4 it was a whopping 33% faster though it seems to be an anomaly considering the rest of the results.
The lead diminishes a lot when you move to 4K, but the Ti still has a 4-8% lead there, and some games that use a lot of VRAM like Dying Light seem to favor the Ti by quite a bit.
This card should be priced closer to the 980, it doesn't compete with the Ti from what I'm seeing. Seriously disappointing as the 290X gave Titan a run for its money.
thelastword
Banned
That maybe so but these tests and comparisons are a bit suspicious to me, also why quote a german site? I have no problem with their frametime graphs but I see some inconsistencies. I noticed that the 8GB 390 wins quite a few tests at 4k but they use the 4GB version of the 380 against the 980ti and the Fury X in their frametime tests.It isn't an angle, it is a way to... you know... look at the data presented by one of the best review sites out there.
If this is truly pointing out that the 4GB of HBM may not be enough at 4K, then I think AMD squandered an opportunity here, but it's still early days to make that call based on AMD's less than stellar optimized drivers at launch and the whole overclocking fiasco. Why aren't these watercooled GPU's overclocking better? That still remains a mystery.
Also why are some sites comparing SC 980ti's to vanilla furies, don't they know that the Fury has issues with overclocking atm.....
michaelius
Banned
Less socialism
I was disappointed at $650+ but for $530 I'm in. If they don't honor this then it's 980ti town for me.
Dictator93
Member
There is no reason to doubt their methodologies or reviews. They are very good at what they do.
Why a german site? I live in germany, speak german, and they happen to be one of the best.
Other than that I usually read Guru3D or PcPer.
WhiskerFrisker
Member
I'm not very impressed with this. Hopefully this will make the 980ti drop in price a little bit.
Sir Abacus
Member
Because when you're voltage limited you can throw all the cooling in the world at it but you still won't gain frequency.
digitalrelic
Banned
If anything this absolutely assures us that there's no need for the 980 Ti to drop in price.
sssstententen
Member
Man. They really did goof. It would've been fine if it had been just the 4gb limit, or just the delay, or just the lack of hdmi, or just the poor launch drivers/volt limit, but all together? Damn, it's like they're rolling over for NVidia at this point.
Really hope we can see some proper competition come 2016, but it seems like I finally have my answer as whether or not I'm jumping ship to Team Green this fall.
Really hope we can see some proper competition come 2016, but it seems like I finally have my answer as whether or not I'm jumping ship to Team Green this fall.
It's really not far off. It mostly hits the halfway point between a 980 and 980 Ti.
I'm also going by HardOCP's "highest playable settings" benchmarks since in the past they've most closely hit the mark as far as real world performance go, compared to my own machine, and are actually a sensible measurement of performance instead of just maxing everything out and running numbers.
WhiskerFrisker
Member
I will be picking this up in the fall so it should go down in price by then.
From the PC Perspective review:
Not a good sign when considering the current mindshare situation and AMD's stigma of poor and/or belated driver support. Even if that stigma is unfounded, AMD's marketing team is facing a hell of an uphill battle.
Yeah no.
Nope.
All the nopes.