-
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.
Would you buy an AMD Fury Pro if it was cheaper and faster than a GTX 980 ?
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
There's one back on now for £500 I think?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,302
Last AMD cards I had run quite hot.
Even if the Fury X were £50 cheaper than a 980 I'd still go for the 980 because of heat/noise and Shadowplay.
Even if the Fury X were £50 cheaper than a 980 I'd still go for the 980 because of heat/noise and Shadowplay.
Reference? my PCS+ ran at about 70c max, thats was before these new drivers, now it runs at about 65c.
The Fury-X is different anyway, runs at ~50c silent with the AIO cooler.
Depends on power usage and heat for me.
Current options:
Add 2nd hand ref 980 for around £300ish, though might get toasty in my case.
Sell 980 for around £300ish, and get a Ti, spending an additional £200.
If Furys can give me similar 1440p performance, cheaper, and doable on my 750w PSU, I'd consider it.
Current options:
Add 2nd hand ref 980 for around £300ish, though might get toasty in my case.
Sell 980 for around £300ish, and get a Ti, spending an additional £200.
If Furys can give me similar 1440p performance, cheaper, and doable on my 750w PSU, I'd consider it.
I like the size of the Fury. In fact I'm really impressed with the size. When I built my first PC in 5 years in November, I was adamant in going for max performance SFF. Now that's changed due to space and heat issues, but the size of the fury and its rad could have helped in achieving that. We might see Fury sized Pascal cards next year when they switch to HBM.
Unfortunately I'm biased to green and wouldn't ever buy AMD again unless they pull something really special out of the hat. They need something like gameworks, and better driver support to pull me back in but I don't see that happening.
Unfortunately I'm biased to green and wouldn't ever buy AMD again unless they pull something really special out of the hat. They need something like gameworks, and better driver support to pull me back in but I don't see that happening.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,754
- Location
- Planet Earth
I like how people ignore the hot running Nvidia cards too...
Considering that the Fury is unlikely to be much slower than a Fury X which is faster than a GTX980 and will have decent third party coolers,I don't see why it should be cheaper than a inferior card unless it's down to brand E-PEEN.
It's one of the reasons AMD struggles down to brand E-PEEN. Nvidia still had greater marketshare when AMD had a six to nine month lead with the HD5000 series.
They were cheaper, had cooler running cards, more features and consumed less power too.
People still paid the same money for worse Nvidia cards...but that was OK but it was dem shifting goalposts.
When Nvidia launched the Fermi cards which consumed more power,ran hot,etc they lost any marketshare they gained too...but dem shifting goalposts.
Personally I think its dumb that AMD launched the Fiji GPU,especially be such a massive GPU which such limited uses. Its not going to be used in their PRO line(thats Hawaii still and its not doing too badly in that regards),and I think AMD should seriously not bother trying to compete too much at the high end. We saw the issue with Android phone vs iPhones too. It was only down to lower priced Android phones that the market for higher end ones became viable.
They had the right idea with their small die strategy - selling cheap performance GPUs in the midrange under £250. People buying in that price range tend to care less about companies,and its also when they did well in marketshare too. Ever since they tried to fight more at the high end they have done worse overall on the GPU side.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,302
I've had a 5850, 5970, 6970 and 6990.
They've all ran at load temps of 70-90c.
My 680, 780 and 980 have never gone over 70'c unless I've forced the fan speed to 30%.
Didn't know the Fury X is a lot cooler than previous cards though at only 65'c supposedly. Though that's what I'd expect as it has an AIO effectively.
Last edited:
I had a Sapphire 6950, it ran at about ~80c
40nm, you get a 290/X with a good AIB cooler they run at around 70c.
No reason why they would run any hotter, the 780/TI used about 20 Watts less than the 290/X
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,754
- Location
- Planet Earth
My HD5850 was lucky to see even 75C at heavy load in a Shuttle SFF PC case. My GTX660 in a better case does run cooler,but there is more cooling available.
Plus whole Nvidia card ranges like the 9000 series were rated at well over 100C. My mate's 9800GT still works now despite spending like three years running at 80C to 90C in a SFF case.
It doesn't still change the fact,that why should AMD need to sell a faster GPU at less than GTX980 pricing. The GTX980 is only going to be better in power consumption,but considering at max settings and at high res a Fury/Fury X is going to be closer to a GTX980TI anyway,so what?
If you were rocking a SFF case,I might understand.
GTX980 cards are £400,so a Fury at £400 is still a better card. Its only going to have 10% less shaders than a Fury X and the same clockspeeds. Considering its a 600MM2 die dissapating the same amount of heat as a R9 290 which is 440MM2,even if it used the same coolers as the latter it will run cooler anyway.
If power consumption/heat were so massively important,the no one would care about a GTX980TI. They would just get a GTX980.
They might as well give up then,if they actually want to make money from them. Its just shifting goalposts - they must be cheaper for better performance,they must be cheaper....
Even when they did,Nvidia still had better marketshare overall. Heck,even when Nvidia had similar performing cards which consumed way more power and produced more heat,they still got more sales. When the HD7970 came in at GTX580 3GB pricing and aftermarket GTX580 1.5GB pricing and was generally faster,everyone complained it was overpriced for being faster and having better performance/watt and even overclocking better and having more VRAM too.
This is why they should have stuck with their small die strategy.
Last edited:
Personally I honestly don't see the point in spending £400 on a 980 or Fury when £500 gets you a 980Ti, if you have £400 to spend, finding another £100 for a much better card is a no brainier unless you're on a tight budget (in which case £400 is probably a bit high anyway!)
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Do you run multi-GPU? If not then what do you think you mean by better driver support?
As for gameworks - ugh, uninstalled that pretty quick, was rubbish at setting up games and that's all it did!
Shadowplay is nice, tho raptr is not too far behind any more, other than that I can see no 'nVidia better' stuff so it all comes down to the individual cards price & performance.
There is a possibility that the Fury Pro is close to a FuryX or even match it once overclocked, which would make it a perfect choice if it's priced around £400. It would even kill FuryX sales hence why some AIB's may not be releasing it.
I would; possibly for second system; but I have pcs+ 290 which is a beast; which doesn't fit into my second case; so for that might be waiting on Nano 
Kinda want the Fury X but waiting for price to drop a little; but if Fury can match fury X with an OC; I'd pick one up....
Kinda want the Fury X but waiting for price to drop a little; but if Fury can match fury X with an OC; I'd pick one up....
If that was the scenario then all the AIB partners would be releasing it. If they didn't, and it does kill FuryX sales like you describe, then everyone would just buy the cards from the AIBs who did bother to release it, and the rest would lose out on the business.