Radeon FURY thread

SkeeterUK · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:35

U know there on ocuk shop for pre order now don't u guys? So no need to guess prices.

Edit - actually do guess as there was one over 600 before now none are over 600.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&subid=3068

truther · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:37

bru said:
If it was that easy even a company as seeming inept as AMD would have done so.

sorry I think your wrong on this one , it simply a case of AMD completely forgetting about hdmi 2.0 .

even on the press video you can see how embarrassed the guy is when he explains what hdmi 1.4a can do and display port. he also mention all future gpus will have hdmi 2.0.

savagesam117 · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:39

SkeeterUK said:
U know there on ocuk shop for pre order now don't u guys? So no need to guess prices.

Edit - actually do guess as there was one over 600 before now none are over 600.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&subid=3068

They are Fury X's?

SkeeterUK · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:44

Presume so, they have hmb and are all on pre order and 500-599 ish.

Edit - yep the names all have fury x, go click the link I gave.

bru · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:46

truther said:
sorry I think your wrong on this one , it simply a case of AMD completely forgetting about hdmi 2.0 .

even on the press video you can see how embarrassed the guy is when he explains what hdmi 1.4a can do and display port. he also mention all future gpus will have hdmi 2.0.

So did they just forget about DP 1.3 as well then. :rolleyes:

It is much more likely that the hardware is just not capable, seeing as it is exactly the same as Tonga in that regard.

This is the family of cards that is supposedly going to save AMD bacon, you really think they are idiots and just forgot about the latest standard that have been on the competitors cards for a year now. :eek:

bru · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:47

SkeeterUK said:
Presume so, they have hmb and are all on pre order and 500-599 ish.

Edit - yep the names all have fury x, go click the link I gave.

He means the ones listed are Fury X's

This thread is for the Fury non X.

SkeeterUK · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:49

Oh my bad I'm sorry. Was a bit confusing.

truther · 8 Jul 2015 at 19:51

bru said:
So did they just forget about DP 1.3 as well then.
It is much more likely that the hardware is just not capable, seeing as it is exactly the same as Tonga in that regard.

This is the family of cards that is supposedly going to save AMD bacon, you really think they are idiots and just forgot about the latest standard that have been on the competitors cards for a year now.

Nvidia has done it ? it has nothing to do with gpu , but more having a digital converter on a pcb.

D.P. · 8 Jul 2015 at 20:53

truther said:
they don't have to use magic, they have to drag and drop the hdmi 2.0 schematic on to the pcb, the AIB's have to make their own pcb or looks like sapphire are using reference which may mean your right.

It is so simple to put HDMI 2.0 on. (truther electronic engineer~)

AFAIK they would need to change the controller on the GPU, which is why it was absent form the FuryX because they simply didn't spend the engineering time on that.

D.P. · 8 Jul 2015 at 20:56

truther said:
Nvidia has done it ? it has nothing to do with gpu , but more having a digital converter on a pcb.

The GPU has to send the right signals to the converter. The Fiji chip isn't capable of outputting the right signal to enable HDMI2.0.

Nvidia achieved this by making changes to their output controller, which is why only new Maxwell cards can support HDMI 2.0

Ash0787 · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:23

I thought the 390x was meant to be the 980s equivalent, what is the purpose of the Fury ?

mururoa · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:26

Ash0787 said:
I thought the 390x was meant to be the 980s equivalent, what is the purpose of the Fury ?

At the first glanze, the gameplan seems to be to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, considering they are also about to introduce the Nano. Guess we'll see what's what, rather soon...

flopper · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:27

Ash0787 said:
I thought the 390x was meant to be the 980s equivalent, what is the purpose of the Fury ?

sit between the 980 and 980ti
empty spot there

mururoa · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:30

flopper said:
sit between the 980 and 980ti
empty spot there

Fury X is sitting there already.

flopper · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:32

mururoa said:
Fury X is sitting there already.

fury x = 980ti
whats your point?

mururoa · 8 Jul 2015 at 21:35

flopper said:
fury x = 980ti
whats your point?

No it's not , not according to any of the reviews available. My point was that the spot between 980 and 980 Ti is not empty as you claimed, as Fury X is occupying that spot already. :confused:

flopper · 9 Jul 2015 at 07:04

mururoa said:
No it's not , not according to any of the reviews available. My point was that the spot between 980 and 980 Ti is not empty as you claimed, as Fury X is occupying that spot already.

No it does not Fury x = 980ti
whats your point again?

chroniclard · 9 Jul 2015 at 07:23

flopper said:
No it does not Fury x = 980ti
whats your point again?

It may be marketed against the Ti but it doesn't match it.

Wrinkly · 9 Jul 2015 at 07:30

flopper said:
No it does not Fury x = 980ti
whats your point again?

At best the Fury X at stock can keep up with a reference 980ti at stock if you are willing to turn down some settings.

But who buys a new card at this price level and is happy turning the settings down? Who buys a beastly 980ti and then runs it at stock?

Benchmarks are not showing the Fury X compete well with the 980ti

Kaapstad · 9 Jul 2015 at 08:40

AMDMatt said:
I nominate Kaap for the Fury owners thread.

I would be happy to an owners thread as long as everyone is ok with it.