• 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.

Fury (non-X) concern...

Legend

Legend

Legend

Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
Unless AMD release firmware/drivers that unlocks the voltage, what will be the point of the non-X Fury exactly? We'll simply have a dozen different cards from their board partners with fancy coolers on... all cooling a card that can't be overclocked more than 5%?? Surely this can't happen?

Unless perhaps the Fury will simply be targetted as a 980 beater, pricing it around the £400 mark (seems likely given the £510 of the X), and then leaving the Fury X to fight it out with 980Ti.

I really am baffled by the fact the Fury X can't be overclocked... they said it was built for that purpose, and if it wasn't (or can't handle it safely) then how could they have made such a monumental screw up with their PR department?!
 
It's early doors mate, give it some time. I reckon AMD are working out a few tricks as we speak. It's only launch day.
 
Typical OC on most reviews show about 10% OC, not 5%.

As you allude to, Fury X has no voltage control at the moment, that does not mean it is not going to change with newer versions of MSI AB for example. Why not wait until it is confirmed one way or the other before being baffled?

You could have easily asked this in one of the many existing Fury X threads.
 
It's probably just the overclocking software that's lagging, everything could be different with this new HBM malarkey, even if it never effects the RAM. They have probably or rather I should say potentially have had this card anywhere up to 1500mhz for all we know, but the end user friendly clocking interfaces may need a bit of work. It could also be that just having the HBM where it is makes overclocking very dangerous to one thing or the other or they could just be taking precautions that isn't the case, not wanting an RMA PR nightmare.
 
ICDP said:
Typical OC on most reviews show about 10% OC, not 5%.

As you allude to, Fury X has no voltage control at the moment, that does not mean it is not going to change with newer versions of MSI AB for example. Why not wait until it is confirmed one way or the other before being baffled?

You could have easily asked this in one of the many existing Fury X threads.
Click to expand...

I did, twice... got lost in the flood.

I'm baffled, quite understandably I would say, because they made a specific claim during the reveal event that this card was an "overclocker's dream" with massive headroom... that's the key point here. It makes no sense, the card was ready and tested... unless there was some major miscommunication between the engineers and the PR team... although as I recall they had their engineers up on stage saying this stuff!! :confused:
 
Legend said:
I did, twice... got lost in the flood.

I'm baffled, quite understandably I would say, because they made a specific claim during the reveal event that this card was an "overclocker's dream" with massive headroom... that's the key point here. It makes no sense, the card was ready and tested... unless there was some major miscommunication between the engineers and the PR team... although as I recall they had their engineers up on stage saying this stuff!! :confused:
Click to expand...

Let's re-watch the youtube vids to see if we can detect looks of defeat behind their eyes.
 
It happened before with AMD in the last round. The 290's came out and they couldnt match the 780's on price per performance then AMD slashed the prices and suddenly they were the card of choice.
 
AMD marketing and market research is Nvidia's best friend it appears. They couldn't organise a **** up in a brewery.

It really makes me wonder what they are smoking at times - they just make themselves such an easy target for Nvidia.
 
I think the non-X is going to have a hard time finding a market. I think people would rather pay less and get a better value R390X or pay more and get a higher performing Fury X or 980 Ti.
 
No way AMD can slash the price this time around.

A chip as big as GM200, and they are selling it as a fully unlocked version. I feel this is why there are two other versions in the wings - Fury (non-X) and Nano - to use up the scavenged parts.

Also, they are mounting this die precisely on a silicon interposer, with 4 stacks of 5 bits of silicon around it, also precisely mounted.

I feel this is probably like the original Pentium Pro - and can't be tested until fully assembled, and is duff if any part is not working.

I imagine their costs on all this new tech are way over nVidia's on the comparatively standard 980ti.

I don't think AMD have room to reduce the price much. I imagine they originally planned to price it higher before nVidia pushed the 980ti out.
 
IT Troll said:
I think the non-X is going to have a hard time finding a market. I think people would rather pay less and get a better value R390X or pay more and get a higher performing Fury X or 980 Ti.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of people that see 1-2 steps below the top card as being the best bang for the buck. An extra £150 for 5 percent more performance never seems to be very attractive to me.

There are also people who don't want to deal with AIO water coolers.
 
rtho782 said:
No way AMD can slash the price this time around.

A chip as big as GM200, and they are selling it as a fully unlocked version. I feel this is why there are two other versions in the wings - Fury (non-X) and Nano - to use up the scavenged parts.

Also, they are mounting this die precisely on a silicon interposer, with 4 stacks of 5 bits of silicon around it, also precisely mounted.

I feel this is probably like the original Pentium Pro - and can't be tested until fully assembled, and is duff if any part is not working.

I imagine their costs on all this new tech are way over nVidia's on the comparatively standard 980ti.

I don't think AMD have room to reduce the price much. I imagine they originally planned to price it higher before nVidia pushed the 980ti out.
Click to expand...

But you are forgetting that the PCB is vastly simpler as most of the wiring and parts are on the interposer.

Plus its made by UMC on an old 65nm process and is passive meaning its cheap to make.

Plus TBF the GTX780 cards did not use that much smaller a GPU either and they were selling for under £400 for yonks.
 
rolypolyman said:
Agree entirely. Not having it performing as it should on launch day is typical for Amd lately. :(
Click to expand...

Note that they made sure reviews were not out until the minute it was available for sale, there weren't many review samples around, etc. (seen a crossfire review? no because that would mean 20% of the review cards in europe were in one place...)
 
TX did not have voltage at launch.

Along with every other bloody card.

Why do people have convenient amnesia when it comes to AMD. I even saw people using the sticker facing the bottom of the case as a talking point against Fury. Next they'll be complaining about HDDs not meeting their advertised capacity. :rolleyes:
 
varkanoid said:
It happened before with AMD in the last round. The 290's came out and they couldnt match the 780's on price per performance then AMD slashed the prices and suddenly they were the card of choice.
Click to expand...

They had bitcoin mining to fall back on though....;)

It's really tough to call Fury AMD's gfx Bulldozer, but it's tempting :p
 
JediFragger said:
They had bitcoin mining to fall back on though....;)

It's really tough to call Fury AMD's gfx Bulldozer, but it's tempting :p
Click to expand...

Comparing Fury the Bulldozer is silly. Bulldozer was crap from the get go and was slower then its previous top end part, Fury X is anyway between +5 to -15 of then 980 Ti and there's a chance software might close the gap a bit more and a much better card then the 290x in everyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom