• 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.

Radeon FURY thread

Associate
Joined
29 Nov 2007
Posts
408
Techreport's review, almost exclusively conducted at 2160p, doesn't paint a massively rosy picture of this card.

value-99th.gif
 
Associate
Joined
22 Feb 2015
Posts
445
Location
Dudley, UK
This actually performed exactly as I expected, albeit being cooler (I expected max temps of 83/85c) and having slightly low power usage!

Yet somehow I am still disappointed. I think I was expecting to replace my 2 290's, the once by FAR best bang for your buck cards, with the new Fury, the card I was hoping to be by FAR the best bang for your buck.

Well, it is the best bang for your buck high resolution card you can buy right now... But thats the problem... the 390 is essentially a 290, but you can buy a 290 for £200... More than double the cost for 10 FPS at 4K? no thanks.... Not much of an upgrade at all over my 2 290's. I would gain what, 20 FPS maximum at 4K for.. £650? Not worth it when I almost get 60 fps in everything maxed anyway....

Although I think for other consumers its good. It beats the 980 well, costs a bit more than a 980, makes sense.

Idk what I was expecting... I have enough grunt to ALMOST be happy at 4K, but it seems like the next step is just a stupid amount of money for such small differences.

I am hoping drivers can really improve this, as its new tech and from the looks of the reviews I don't think its doing as well as it should.

Honestly right now after looking at some charts the only high res setups that make sense is mine aka the budget solution, 2 290/390s. Or the expensive solution 2 980Ti's, I find it very difficult to see any point spending extra money for any of the cards in between if you play games at higher than 1080p, Also 980's are terrible at 4k for their cost, 290/390's are neck and neck with them.... I guess that's a byproduct of small maxwell and small memory bandwidth though.

Doing some quick naive tests also shows this in my eyes. (At 4K, assuming 100% multi-GPU scaling and stock clocks on all cards, numbers based on anandtech and hardwarecanucks reviews)

2 290/390 - Total Cost ~£500
2 980 - Total Cost ~£800
2 Fury - Total Cost ~£900
2 980Ti - Total Cost ~£1100

These numbers are based on SoM at ultra settings
290/390, ~£8/FPS, ~60 FPS
980, ~£13.79/FPS ~58 FPS
Fury, ~£12.85/FPS ~70 FPS
980Ti, ~£13.75/FPS, ~80 FPS

These numbers are based on GTAV at Very high settings
290/390, ~£12.5/FPS, ~38 FPS
980, ~£18.6/FPS ~43 FPS
Fury, ~£18.75/FPS ~48 FPS
980Ti, ~£19.64/FPS, ~56 FPS

If you are going to spend the extra £400 for the extra 10 fps, why not spend another £200 for ANOTHER 10? I am amazed that a flagship card.. and an nvidia flagship card at that is actually good bang for buck... What is going on with the world! AMD might actually have working drivers next! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2007
Posts
3,757
Location
Ayr, Scotland
Sadly I see no reason to 'upgrade' from my 290. The single card performance is not there, at what I perceive to be a decent price. Amd have messed this up to be honest, I have waited patiently since the Amd 'Launch' to see if performance/price improved and here we are and there is still little if any stock and pricing is so wrong in my view and performance is meh. The 300 series launch is a complete rip off and makes even less sense now with the Fury launch. The prices are too close, no stock and performance is meh. I don't care about Nvidia so I think I will wait for the next process. So disappointed with AMD. Just my views. :(
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2011
Posts
5,849
Dunno why AMD even bothered releasing the 3xx / fury/x as all of them are a massive let down, not even sure they will be in business next year now when the die shrinks come.

Really don't want to give Nvidia any money but what alternative is there now? I own a 290, there current uninspiring range is not of interest in the slightest, so it's either 980ti and gsync or wait it out and hope that some happens next year, or just give up PC gaming lol
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,764
Location
Planet Earth
This actually performed exactly as I expected, albeit being cooler (I expected max temps of 83/85c) and having slightly low power usage!

Yet somehow I am still disappointed. I think I was expecting to replace my 2 290's, the once by FAR best bang for your buck cards, with the new Fury, the card I was hoping to be by FAR the best bang for your buck.

Well, it is the best bang for your buck high resolution card you can buy right now... But thats the problem... the 390 is essentially a 290, but you can buy a 290 for £200... More than double the cost for 10 FPS at 4K? no thanks.... Not much of an upgrade at all over my 2 290's. I would gain what, 20 FPS maximum at 4K for.. £650? Not worth it when I almost get 60 fps in everything maxed anyway....

Although I think for other consumers its good. It beats the 980 well, costs a bit more than a 980, makes sense.

Idk what I was expecting... I have enough grunt to ALMOST be happy at 4K, but it seems like the next step is just a stupid amount of money for such small differences.

I am hoping drivers can really improve this, as its new tech and from the looks of the reviews I don't think its doing as well as it should.

Honestly right now after looking at some charts the only high res setups that make sense is mine aka the budget solution, 2 290/390s. Or the expensive solution 2 980Ti's, I find it very difficult to see any point spending extra money for any of the cards in between if you play games at higher than 1080p, Also 980's are terrible at 4k for their cost, 290/390's are neck and neck with them.... I guess that's a byproduct of small maxwell and small memory bandwidth though.

Doing some quick naive tests also shows this in my eyes. (At 4K, assuming 100% multi-GPU scaling and stock clocks on all cards, numbers based on anandtech and hardwarecanucks reviews)

2 290/390 - Total Cost ~£500
2 980 - Total Cost ~£800
2 Fury - Total Cost ~£900
2 980Ti - Total Cost ~£1100

These numbers are based on SoM at ultra settings
290/390, ~£8/FPS, ~60 FPS
980, ~£13.79/FPS ~58 FPS
Fury, ~£12.85/FPS ~70 FPS
980Ti, ~£13.75/FPS, ~80 FPS

These numbers are based on GTAV at Very high settings
290/390, ~£12.5/FPS, ~38 FPS
980, ~£18.6/FPS ~43 FPS
Fury, ~£18.75/FPS ~48 FPS
980Ti, ~£19.64/FPS, ~56 FPS

If you are going to spend the extra £400 for the extra 10 fps, why not spend another £200 for ANOTHER 10? I am amazed that a flagship card.. and an nvidia flagship card at that is actually good bang for buck... What is going on with the world! AMD might actually have working drivers next! :rolleyes::rolleyes:
But this is part of the problem why they don't want to be seen as the budget brand. As one NV fan said on Anandtech forums,Nvidia fans will sink money into the brand even for small increases in performance, whereas AMD fans will not - see all the complaining about the HD7970 launch price or even the fact AMD went with a cheap cooler with the R9 290 cards so they could sell them cheaper. The same with the HD6970 and so on when people were complaining it was too expensive.

This has the effect of Nvidia making simply more money per card meaning more can be sunk into hardware and software business,whereas with AMD its the opposite.

This is why for AMD they should just go with smaller die chips like they did with the HD4000 so they can sell cheap midrange cards, since this is when they did reasonably well.

Ever since they went after the performance crown its been a disaster in the last few years. They need to know their market better.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
But this is part of the problem why they don't want to be seen as the budget brand. As one NV fan said on Anandtech forums,Nvidia fans will sink money into the brand even for small increases in performance, whereas AMD fans will not - see all the complaining about the HD7970 launch price or even the fact AMD went with a cheap cooler with the R9 cards so they could sell them cheaper.

This is why for AMD they should just go with smaller die chips like they did with the HD4000 so they can sell cheap midrange cards, since this is when they did reasonably well.

Ever since they went after the performance crown its been a disaster in the last few years. They need to know their market better.

The thing is AMD are increasing their GPGPU share, their workstation cards are pretty good, powerful, efficient and what matters here' big.

Fiji will eventually end up a workstation card and with its massive 8.6 TFlops of compute power it blows NV Maxwell 6.1 TFlops GM200 out of the water for around the same power consumption.

Workstation GPU's is really where all the money is at as they sell them for 3 thousand £ + a pop. sell just 1000 of those and its £3m banked.

Its worth competing in that space and they can't do that without big GPU's.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,764
Location
Planet Earth
The thing is AMD are increasing their GPGPU share, their workstation cards are pretty good, powerful, efficient and what matters here' big.

Fiji will eventually end up a workstation card and with its massive 8.6 TFlops of compute power it blows NV Maxwell 6.1 TFlops GM200 out of the water for around the same power consumption.

Workstation GPU's is really where all the money is at as they sell them for 3 thousand £ + a pop.

Its worth competing in that space and they can't do that without big GPU's.

I doubt it as Fiji has a worse DP compute rate than Hawaii.

But point in hand,enough people were still willing to get gtx980 cards when there were cheaper GTX970 cards. It's not really massively different than a r9 390x/r9 390 and a Fury either. Yet people buying Nv cards tend to complain far less. Same with the hd7970 at launch.

In the end AMD is better served targeting under £300 with as cheap to produce GPUs as possible. Their market won't support much over that unless they pull off another 9700 pro moment.

Yet interestingly IIRC even with the 9700 pro being slightly cheaper and coming out before the FX5800,they lost marketshare quarter on quarter and that was even with the disaster which was the FX series and HL2.

So even the finest moment for ATI was actually a disaster for them.

Even the HD5000 series only did well as it did since it was underpriced and they had no competition for six to nine months. Even then Nvidia still had the edge on marketshare,which even a relatively imperfect Fermi soon swung things back in their favour.

I knew enough people who bought GTX470 and GTX480 cards.

Unlike in the US the GTX470 was not cheaper than the HD5870 here and the GTX480 was much more expensive for a small performance increase at launch.

People might have made grill jokes about them,but they still sold enough of them.

Fast forward to the incremental upgrades of the GTX570 and HD6970. Plenty NV fans bought the former but with the latter AMD people were complaining about the HD6970 being too expensive.
If it were not for all the unlockable HD6950 cards which cratered HD6970 sales,the HD6900 series would have been a flop.

This essentially pegged AMD card values closer to the £200 mark and NV ones much higher,since the GTX570 was much closer to HD6970 level pricing.

The thing is I can see what they have done with the 300 series - the pricing of the 200 series must have not been bearable longterm as a viable business so they wanted to raise ASPs. Whether it's a viable strategy is one thing,but I don't expect the 400 series to be cheap either especially if they release it before Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
3 Sep 2010
Posts
2,847
The thing is AMD are increasing their GPGPU share, their workstation cards are pretty good, powerful, efficient and what matters here' big.

Fiji will eventually end up a workstation card and with its massive 8.6 TFlops of compute power it blows NV Maxwell 6.1 TFlops GM200 out of the water for around the same power consumption.

Workstation GPU's is really where all the money is at as they sell them for 3 thousand £ + a pop. sell just 1000 of those and its £3m banked.

Its worth competing in that space and they can't do that without big GPU's.

Thats one big reason for the big die.
PC kids buy midrange normally but workstation is totally different.
the few who go entusiast is a small niche market.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Nov 2013
Posts
423
I used to buy midrange, a few years ago I had a system with a phenom x4 with a 550Ti, it struggled a bit with some games like Guild Wars 2

So in 2013 I decided to make a computer that would be considered 'good', turns out that it costs quite a lot to make, for cpu I went with i5-4670K which proved to be a good choice, but then I got a gtx 660 because it was around the price range that I remember paying for the best cards like the 8800 GT, I was dissapointed with the 660 though, it was getting under 30 fps in some modern titles like FFXIV, so I sold it and got a 670, which was considerably better, getting 40-50 fps in the same situation, but I still didnt feel it was super powerful or future proofed so I later went for the 780 which proved to be an excellent card. So you need to be paying quite a lot to get decent power levels although prices have dropped a lot in the past 18 monthes.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
At 1440p and above the Fury out performs its rival 980, with voltage unlocking and driver maturity they would decimate it.

That is a pretty big assumption, it took AMD nearly a year to get the 7970 operating how it should, if it takes them the same with Furry's then 16nm cards will be here before they get around to it

And actually, it is looking more like AMD's latest cards are just not well balanced in terms of shaders vs triangles, so its a big question mark as to whether games will be able to take advantage of that in the same time frame

And then you have to consider that most people still game at 1080p and sales of this card don't look massively rosey
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
At 1440p and above the Fury out performs its rival 980, with voltage unlocking and driver maturity they would decimate it.

Don't forget that most 980's will easily do 1400mhz boost clock, and a lot do 1450 or even 1500, and that is on stock volts.

I have my 980 boosting to 1450mhz at stock volts 24/7 and the MSI gaming cooler still keeps it under 65 degrees at full load and silent, whilst playing Witcher 3, even in this hot weather
 
Last edited:

bru

bru

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
7,360
Location
kent
Just reading the anandtech fury review, only to find the Asus Strix card has a complete custom PCB and power circuitry and yet still no voltage control, even with their own GPU tweak II software.
I do hope this doesn't bode ill for the future.
 

Mei

Mei

Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2012
Posts
3,983
Just reading the anandtech fury review, only to find the Asus Strix card has a complete custom PCB and power circuitry and yet still no voltage control, even with their own GPU tweak II software.
I do hope this doesn't bode ill for the future.

does seem strange
*shrug*
 
Associate
Joined
4 Nov 2013
Posts
1,437
Location
Oxfordshire
Don't forget that most 980's will easily do 1400mhz boost clock, and a lot do 1450 or even 1500, and that is on stock volts.

I have my 980 boosting to 1450mhz at stock volts 24/7 and the MSI gaming cooler still keeps it under 65 degrees at full load and silent, whilst playing Witcher 3, even in this hot weather

According to the TPU tests the 1300-1350mhz boost custom 980s are about the same performance as the Fury (compared to ref 980)..so they have about the same headroom then ~8-10%
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
Back
Top Bottom