• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

"Overclocks Dream" The Fury X

Scougar

Scougar

Scougar

Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
15,485
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
So.. let's do this...

With the claim being that it was an overclockers dream, so far we have seen nothing that even remotely implies it will be. No voltage control (patience you say?), Fury Pro's with high volts also don't clock well. Asus's custom version that has GPU Tweak doesn't even support it (yet?)

What the heck is going on? An overclockers dream would be a high overclock, and a large boost in performance for essentially free.

Why would the CEO an AMD Engineer make such bold claims without having anything to actually back it up?

Are they simply insinuating that an overclocker is one who likes AIO's?

(NOTE: I have edited the above to correct some information I got wrong)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't take it seriously tbh, seems to just have been a slip by one of the exec's (probably due to the beefy cooling alone for the X). Ti is where it's at in regards to great overclocks (one of the reasons I went with one).

It may still turn out to be once voltage control is added, but I wouldn't expect it really.
 
It was Joe Macri that said it was an overclockers dream not Lisa Sue, he's one of the main engineers so presumably knows what he's talking about. On paper it should have been but so far in real world there's not much movement in it. Whether that's to do with voltages or whatever i've no idea.

Its reminiscent of intel saying devils canyon would be able to easily overclock to 5ghz on air.
 
Last edited:
definitely needed another Fury thread.

No voltage control (patience you say?) + . Asus's custom version that has GPU Tweak doesn't even support it (yet?)
Click to expand...
Yep, its on the 3rd parties. If asus make a custom version and then dont support it currently why are you laying it on AMD's doorstep?

Why would the CEO make such bold claims without having anything to actually back it up?
Click to expand...

Advertising/PR or eventual results when the voltage is eventually unlocked we dont know as one part of the equation is not known

Are they simply insinuating that an overclocker is one who likes AIO's?
Click to expand...

Possibly. by mentioning the max power draw (400A?) it may be suggesting when we get voltage unlock we can stress it due to the superior cooling given Ohms law. no different IMHO to 3rd party coolers being overclockers preferred choice due to better results (G1 etc)

Basically its a wait and see on the voltage unlock, although its a shame its taken this long it seems to me stock is negating the issue anyway :)
 


Fury-x has a better chance of scaling clocks with voltage but at 1.21v there's not a huge amount of headroom left voltage wise. For the Fury 3584, the headroom is going to be a lot lower due to the limit of air cooling. Then that's if we ever see 3rd party overclocking apps to allow voltage control as well as keeping the adaptive vao and avfs in check.
 
Think we just waiting on software to allow Voltage control.. Got to remember this might take them little more longer because how new and different the GPUs are vs last Gen.

The guy behind MSI AB has said he be working on it.
 
Perhaps there,s more to overclocking the Fury than just sticking more voltage through the thing, after all they designed it they should know what it needs to get every last drop out of there hardware.

Or perhaps they already have?
 
Aren't the vrms on these cards running 100c+? I know vrms perform under high temps but you have to think they can only take so much...these cards need active vrm cooling before any serious clocking is considered. 1.3v would kill them almost instantly, while an actively cooled card would survive.
 
pgi947 said:
Aren't the vrms on these cards running 100c+? I know vrms perform under high temps but you have to think they can only take so much...these cards need active vrm cooling before any serious clocking is considered. 1.3v would kill them almost instantly, while an actively cooled card would survive.
Click to expand...

The cooling covers the VRMs so I guess they should be quite low!
 
I'm only judging from a review using a thermal camera that clocked the vrm bank at 100+c, would have to dig it out.

Though I can tell you from being a seasoned watercooler, block passive water cooling doesn't work, active or give up. Alphacool did/do passive vrm, core only blocks and they sucked balls, core at 40c, vrms at 90+
 
pgi947 said:
I'm only judging from a review using a thermal camera that clocked the vrm bank at 100+c, would have to dig it out.

Though I can tell you from being a seasoned watercooler, block passive water cooling doesn't work, active or give up. Alphacool did/do passive vrm, core only blocks and they sucked balls, core at 40c, vrms at 90+
Click to expand...

you are correct, if you use a block for the gpu core and vrms, then you either need a cooling fan or a passive heatsink over the vrms to assist with the heatsoak.
 
pgi947 said:
I'm only judging from a review using a thermal camera that clocked the vrm bank at 100+c, would have to dig it out.

Though I can tell you from being a seasoned watercooler, block passive water cooling doesn't work, active or give up. Alphacool did/do passive vrm, core only blocks and they sucked balls, core at 40c, vrms at 90+
Click to expand...

Take the with a pinch of salt! If you ever used a Thermal gun on a GPU you would know you get very mixed result vs whats happening at the core or VRMs..

This happens because how the GPU moves heat away from it.. The reading on an heat Gun will always be very different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom