• 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 TAKE THE CROWN: FURY DUO PRO NOW AVAILABLE!! **

Gerard said:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Pro-Duo-Review review

Click to expand...


"As it turns out, thanks to a water cooling setup that keeps the Fiji XT GPUs on the Radeon Pro Duo at around 50C"

but 120mm isnt enough to cool Two nanos? ;)



"The Radeon Pro Duo power consumption test results in a maximum draw rate of 498 watts in The Witcher 3. This is total system draw from the wall, not the card alone. If you compare that to the Radeon R9 295X2 from a couple of years back, which hits 615 watts at the wall, the dual-Fiji uses 117 watts less while performing 30-40% faster!"

But people say the card alone must pull 500watts because it has 3x8pin connectors... This review must be fake because the people know best. :D
 
Overlag said:
"As it turns out, thanks to a water cooling setup that keeps the Fiji XT GPUs on the Radeon Pro Duo at around 50C"

but 120mm isnt enough to cool Two nanos? ;)



"The Radeon Pro Duo power consumption test results in a maximum draw rate of 498 watts in The Witcher 3. This is total system draw from the wall, not the card alone. If you compare that to the Radeon R9 295X2 from a couple of years back, which hits 615 watts at the wall, the dual-Fiji uses 117 watts less while performing 30-40% faster!"

But people say the card alone must pull 500watts because it has 3x8pin connectors... This review must be fake because the people know best. :D
Click to expand...

I believe this is a very good review of a very bad card lol.

There is nothing good in the review for AMD to talk about.

Poor performance due to low clockspeeds due to limitations of the cooling.

I won't even mention frametimes.

The only good point is it is a single card solution.

This really is AMDs Titan Z, having said that the Titan Z has probably got much better frametimes lol.

All in all a good review.

Almost forgot, why is the power consumption lower on GTX 980 Ti SLI lol.
 
abui1806 said:
2 gpus running at around 50C and the cooler still be blamed.
Click to expand...

Lets see some decent clockspeeds out of the card then you can say the cooler is doing a good job.

@DM I also noticed in that review they were having problems with the 4gb cards running out of memory lol. It is a good job they were not using max settings.
 
Kaapstad said:
How does that compare to AMD cards, is it a good or bad result ?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, someone with a 390 and 3DSMax needs to run a comparison.

Its not too good, i suspect a 390 is about 20% faster, if not more.

Tomorrow i might run it again in Metal Ray for comparison.

In anycase this is one of the things this card is shooting at.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I have no idea, someone with a 390 and 3DSMax needs to run a comparison.

Its not too good, i suspect a 390 is about 20% faster, if not more.

Tomorrow i might run it again in Metal Ray for comparison.
Click to expand...

Is 3DSMax free and does it support Crossfire ?
 
Cool ^^^ :)

If anyone else wants to run it and needs help let me know, its pretty easy, straight forward and quick to setup once you know how.
 
What kaap fails to mention that after the investment of his fury x's and the removal of the stock coolers followed by the investment of gpu blocks and water cooling setup, that he only gained about 25mhz over a stock fury x + cooler. Which makes his overclocking rad too small statement irrelevant as he wasn't thermally limited to start with, the limitation is gcn 1.2 and it's density not temps.
 
Nice to see AMD follow Nv's lead and not releasing any for reviews and claim it's built for another purpose while at the same time riding high on the publicity crest of 'we make the fastest card in the planet'.

@Kaap,

Put anything bigger than a 120 rad on it and the target audience collapses from almost non existent to extinct, all the cooler needs to do is to keep it within thermal target@stock=stop it throttling/overheating and blowing up.

Its a dual slot/gpu card-it's NOT and never was built for overclocking, that's what single gpu cards are for-ask 8pack.:p
 
Kaapstad said:
Lets see some decent clockspeeds out of the card then you can say the cooler is doing a good job.
Click to expand...

Come on Kaap you know perfectly well you don't get good clock speeds increases out of any Fiji chips and even with a custom waterblock the Nano still sits slightly behind even a Fury pro. I looked at this the other day in a different thread (I think).
I went onto the 3dmark website and looked at the fastest Fury Nano results to compare against some of the fastest Fury X and Fury pro results (not LN results). Nano custom waterblock overclocks are a fair bit lower than what you can achieve with a Fury X and just below those from the pro, That's with the cooler factor removed and it's down to the power differences.

The best Nano results where managing 1110/1120 for Firestrike extreme, I'm a rubbish inexperienced overclocker but in the past I've been able to get my Fury Pro to do a clean artifact free run of Firestrike extreme at 1110 without touching voltage settings.

So the best single card nano results were around 1120 yet there where results of 1150/1160 for the Fury pro and higher for the Fury X.

Anyone wanting to get good overclocks on the graphics card or cards that they get for there PC should not be considering Nano's or a Duo so it's a moot point.
For the target audience nano's and the Pro are the best options on the market but outside of there target audience you're better off with an X or possibly a pro
 
Last edited:
nashathedog said:
Come on Kaap you know perfectly well you don't get good clock speeds increases out of any Fiji chips and even with a custom waterblock the Nano still sits slightly behind even a Fury pro. I looked at this the other day in a different thread (I think).
I went onto the 3dmark website and looked at the fastest Fury Nano results to compare against some of the fastest Fury X and Fury pro results (not LN results). Nano custom waterblock overclocks are a fair bit lower than what you can achieve with a Fury X and just below those from the pro, That's with the cooler factor removed and it's down to the power differences.

The best Nano results where managing 1110/1120 for Firestrike extreme, I'm a rubbish inexperienced overclocker but in the past I've been able to get my Fury Pro to do a clean artifact free run of Firestrike extreme at 1110 without touching voltage settings.

So the best single card nano results were around 1120 yet there where results of 1150/1160 for the Fury pro and higher for the Fury X.

Anyone wanting to get good overclocks on the graphics card or cards that they get for there PC should not be considering Nano's or a Duo so it's a moot point.
For the target audience nano's and the Pro are the best options on the market but outside of there target audience you're better off with an X or possibly a pro
Click to expand...

I agree with the above.:)

I do think though that this really is AMDs Titan Z, a card that they would like to target at gamers but are unable to do due to it's limitations. If they could have got it running reliably at 1050/500 the same as the Fury X they would have done it and targeted it at a wider market.
 
Last edited:
Davedree said:
What kaap fails to mention that after the investment of his fury x's and the removal of the stock coolers followed by the investment of gpu blocks and water cooling setup, that he only gained about 25mhz over a stock fury x + cooler. Which makes his overclocking rad too small statement irrelevant as he wasn't thermally limited to start with, the limitation is gcn 1.2 and it's density not temps.
Click to expand...

Now you mention it a Fury X with waterblocks on stock volts can do around 1150mhz. I notice in the review that the new Duo was holding a whopping 922mhz, thanks for scoring an own goal by bringing that up lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom