• 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.

****Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread****

Now I know why AMD's video presentation for the 300 series and Fury seemed so forced and awkward, because even the people working for them probably knew it was never going to cut the mustard. I can remember huddy asking whether 4gb was enough for serious 4k gaming, to which that was met with a response saying that it would. Yet earlier in the presentation they were boasting about how the 390x and it's 8gb was needed for high resolution gaming. Who are they trying to kid with this stuff?

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, they are contradictory. Why say you need one thing and then say something which completely opposes the other??
 
Last edited:
Tom|Nbk said:
I know I keep saying this but I really am having flashbacks of the HD2900 launch, unfortunately on that one I was an early adopter convinced drivers would sort it but they never did...
Click to expand...

I was in the same boat :( However the AMD drivers of today are very different to the ones back then, I'm sure that if AMD could find about 10% extra performance in the 200 series cards with recent drivers, then they can find more performance from the Fury X. Also the Fury X doesn't have gaping holes in performance like the 2900XT had with AA on.
 
Here is me thinking the Fury X is like some big fist smashing Nvidias **** in, when its just turned out to be nothing more than a butt plug! :p

I suppose the tech is in its infancy, I think DX12 will change a lot of things.
X-fire and DX12 allowing the memory to stack so kapp will have 16GB! ;)

See what happens I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom