• 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.

AMD R9 Fury X Leaps Ahead Of Nvidia GTX 980 Ti With The Latest Windows 10 Drivers

Kaapstad said:
Have you not noticed that the achievable overclock figures for the cards never change on the Tech Powerup reviews.

As we all know when overclocking different platforms and different drivers give different overclocks for graphics cards.

How much other stuff are Tech Powerup recycling instead of testing properly........

To do a review for a single card is very time consuming if done properly, to do a whole bunch is a huge amount of work.
Click to expand...

I didn't, but I did notice that both the fan noise and power usage remained the same across both the skylake and haswell systems, so some things are indeed recycled. But the fact remains, the FPS changes, at least in FarCry 4.

The original point was that the 'reference' has improved in those newer benchmarks compared to the older ones. So none of the amounts have remained static WRT game performance - at least when looking at FarCry 4.

Either they've made up the FPS results for the reference 980Ti in the lightning review completely, or they've retested something.
 
loftie said:
I didn't, but I did notice that both the fan noise and power usage remained the same across both the skylake and haswell systems, so some things are indeed recycled. But the fact remains, the FPS changes, at least in FarCry 4.

The original point was that the 'reference' has improved in those newer benchmarks compared to the older ones. So none of the amounts have remained static WRT game performance - at least when looking at FarCry 4.

Either they've made up the FPS results for the reference 980Ti in the lightning review completely, or they've retested something.
Click to expand...

As you have noticed things are being recycled, this brings into question everything else they are doing in reviews.
 
Gregster said:
Ermmm, that's **** poor really and even though the COD franchise is considered lame, it sells galore and I would expect a Fury to **** over a 290X :(

Mind you, WCCF, so I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
Click to expand...

I found a few examples where my old 290x matched or even beat my Fury when I did a series of benches while I had both at the same time. It was older titles, Benchmarks for games like Far cry 2 and F1 2012. FC2 had the Fury avg 4 frames slower and F1 2012 had it 5 frames slower. Other games tended to had the Fury sitting anywhere from 10 to 20 frames ahead, Go figure!
 
It looks like a problem with shadow mapping from reading the article. This should be fixable. When turning the shadows to high @ 1440p the fury pulls a 60% performance advantage over the gtx980 and nearly triples its performance compared to the shadows on extra. At 1080p there is a big leap as well but not as much as at 1440p.

The 290x is not included in the shadow tests so its hard to compare but i think the Fury would be well faster with Shadows at high.

Looking at the Titan X results which are off the chart compared to the other cards it does point in the way of memory with it being the only card with loads to spare.
 
Last edited:
loftie said:
I didn't, but I did notice that both the fan noise and power usage remained the same across both the skylake and haswell systems, so some things are indeed recycled. But the fact remains, the FPS changes, at least in FarCry 4.

The original point was that the 'reference' has improved in those newer benchmarks compared to the older ones. So none of the amounts have remained static WRT game performance - at least when looking at FarCry 4.

Either they've made up the FPS results for the reference 980Ti in the lightning review completely, or they've retested something.
Click to expand...
Kaapstad said:
As you have noticed things are being recycled, this brings into question everything else they are doing in reviews.
Click to expand...

Well their fps in crysis 3, bf3 and witcher 3 have changed (some drastically in Witcher 3 while crysis 3 and bf3 sees little % change), cba with going through each game. Someone feel free to if they want!
Haswell Nano review
Skylake 980ti SC review

Wrt any recycled data in power and fan noise, it is explained in their method description. They are not reliant on overall system power draw or noise because they isolate the power draw from the card and for noise testing place the card in a passive system.


Techpowerup said:
Noise testing
The tested graphics card is installed in a system that does not emit any noise on its own, using a passive PSU, passive CPU cooler, passive cooling on the motherboard, and a solid state drive. Noise results of other cards on this page are measurements of the respective reference design.

Power consumption
For this test, we measure the power consumption of only the graphics card via the PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 digital multimeter with 6.5-digit resolution is used for all measurements. Again, these values only reflect the card's power consumption as measured at its DC inputs, not that of the whole system.

We use Metro: Last Light as a standard test for typical 3D gaming usage because it offers the following: very high power draw; high repeatability; is a current game that is supported on all cards; drivers are actively tested and optimized for it; supports all multi-GPU configurations; test runs in a relatively short time and renders a non-static scene with variable complexity.
Click to expand...

Now there might be a slight change in power draw of the card if it pushes a smidgen more frames out in Metro:Last night. The new system can be easily and reasonably validated with a few runs on both the new and old system with only a cpl of cards. I very much doubt it is much based of crysis 3 results (old game as is Metro:last night so reduced influence from game patches and game specific driver enhancements)
 
eddyr said:
Now there might be a slight change in power draw of the card if it pushes a smidgen more frames out in Metro:Last night. The new system can be easily and reasonably validated with a few runs on both the new and old system with only a cpl of cards. I very much doubt it is much based of crysis 3 results (old game as is Metro:last night so reduced influence from game patches and game specific driver enhancements)
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, are they using the original Metro: Last Light or the Metro: Last Light Redux?
 
humbug said:
Fury-X is doing alright now, overall just 5% slower than the 980TI at 1080P, a match at 1440P and 5% faster at 4K.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Lightning/23.html
Click to expand...

If I put one of my Fury Xs up against my GTX 980 Ti it would not even be close. Until the Fury X gets voltage control things are not going to change.

On stock volts my Fury X can do 1150/500

On stock volts my GTX 980 Ti can do 1575/2002

Here is a bench thread (which may look very familiar) where both cards are using stock volts.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18489026
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
If I put one of my Fury Xs up against my GTX 980 Ti it would not even be close. Until the Fury X gets voltage control things are not going to change.

On stock volts my Fury X can do 1150/500

On stock volts my GTX 980 Ti can do 1575/2002

Here is a bench thread (which may look very familiar) where both cards are using stock volts.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18489026
Click to expand...

Valley has always been slanted toward Nvidia anyway, but yes i know they overclock higher, look at the 980TI Lightning in the review, having said that its running at over 1400Mhz. (1075 +25% Lightning performance = 1350Mhz | 7 in 10 scaling = about 1450Mhz) which is getting close to its max overclock.

Fury-X will not be a match for the 980TI even with unlocked volts, but it is much closer now and its probably not far off, certainly not at 4K, if AMD can tweak the drivers some more......

The thing is at 4K the 980TI already has some catching up to do, its not going to take a lot more to make it properly competitive, AMD are pretty good at using drivers to push more performance.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
If I put one of my Fury Xs up against my GTX 980 Ti it would not even be close. Until the Fury X gets voltage control things are not going to change.

On stock volts my Fury X can do 1150/500

On stock volts my GTX 980 Ti can do 1575/2002

Here is a bench thread (which may look very familiar) where both cards are using stock volts.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18489026
Click to expand...

1575 ? Nice, My Classified only does 1520 but 8350 on the memory but then again that 55MHz would probably account for only 2FPS :p
 
These are pretty high overclocks if they are 24/7.

I have had run mine at 1604/2100 (8400 Memory) but i get artefacts in some things, i could probably run 1550/2000 24/7 but the difference in performance is about 1 FPS.

You see few Maxwell GPU's run more than 1550Mhz for benching let alone 1600Mhz for 24/7 gaming and once you're at 1450Mhz the gains are almost nothing.

I would say that 980TI Lightning with it running around 1450Mhz in the TPU review is a benchmark for the Fury-X, its 20% faster vs the stock Fury-X at 4K. or 25% at 1440P.
 
Last edited:
b-but fury x is an overclockers dream!

My 980s run at 1400 base, 1530 boost in just about everything. Very impressed with the clockability of maxwell.
 
I don't think it's fair to compare a 1575mhz Kingpin to the FX, or use Heaven as the reference tbh.

Sure, an OC'd Ti will pull ahead anyway, but it'd be fairer to use a normal/average OC of say, 1400-1500 as a marker as well as a game/bench that doesn't tend to favour one vendor.
That's if you have to use an OC'd card as a comparison.
 
Uncle Petey said:
I don't think it's fair to compare a 1575mhz Kingpin to the FX, or use Heaven as the reference tbh.

Sure, an OC'd Ti will pull ahead anyway, but it'd be fairer to use a normal/average OC of say, 1400-1500 as a marker as well as a game/bench that doesn't tend to favour one vendor.
That's if you have to use an OC'd card as a comparison.
Click to expand...

How do we know if a game/bench favours one vendor over the other?
 
rtho782 said:
b-but fury x is an overclockers dream!

My 980s run at 1400 base, 1530 boost in just about everything. Very impressed with the clockability of maxwell.
Click to expand...

Had similar success with mine, but the less than favorable motherboard spacing has made me drop it a little bit. top card was approaching 80 when playing FO4 and plus it's not really a game that needs the power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom