Fury X for £330, do I buy?

melmac · 7 Apr 2018 at 23:30

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Good to know, thanks.
I may switch them round and give it a try.

You are welcome

And I don't think we are taking the thread off topic, it was finished anyway

it's a unanimous NO, don't buy a Fury card for £330!!

sideways14a · 7 Apr 2018 at 23:36

Yeah its still a solid card but not at that money, 250 yeah... maybe 270 but not over 300 pictures of her Maj.

Tommy_Here · 8 Apr 2018 at 07:51

Definitely not I wouldn't even get a 980 Ti for that price now which imo is a much better card than fury x

Caracus2k · 8 Apr 2018 at 08:24

Given that new 1070`s (that will smack a fury silly in pretty much any scenario) are back quite a bit under £400 (Palit game Rock i can see now for £389.99) you would have to be off your rocker to pay anything like £330 for a used Fury X...

Unless something drastically changes supply or mining wise new prices of current cards shouldn't shoot up and used prices should only fall for both AMD and Nvidia cards from here on for the forseaable.

GoogalyMoogaly · 8 Apr 2018 at 10:44

melmac said:
You are welcome And I don't think we are taking the thread off topic, it was finished anyway it's a unanimous NO, don't buy a Fury card for £330!!

I tried the adaptor that came with the FuryX (connected to a 980) and it seems it will not support 1440p/60hz. It does 2048x1152/60 or something like that but that's not really what I'm after. I'm only using it for my 2nd screen, but still. not worth losing the resolution just to gain a few fps in some games.

EDIT: Possibly also worth mentioning that I occasionally use VR (Rift). Not sure how FuryX compares to a 980/980SLI in VR? (I know the newer Nvidia cards do better than the newer AMD ones, not sure about this Gen though)

melmac · 8 Apr 2018 at 12:44

GoogalyMoogaly said:
I tried the adaptor that came with the FuryX (connected to a 980) and it seems it will not support 1440p/60hz. It does 2048x1152/60 or something like that but that's not really what I'm after. I'm only using it for my 2nd screen, but still. not worth losing the resolution just to gain a few fps in some games.

EDIT: Possibly also worth mentioning that I occasionally use VR (Rift). Not sure how FuryX compares to a 980/980SLI in VR? (I know the newer Nvidia cards do better than the newer AMD ones, not sure about this Gen though)

That's an odd resolution, guess it's only a passive adapter and not an active one?

The 980 and the Fury X should be roughly the same in VR. So again, it's probably not worth switching out for. SLI doesn't work in VR at the moment.

Kirby Wurm · 8 Apr 2018 at 13:43

For £330 a 980 Ti is a much better bet, consistently faster and better at VR.

jigger · 8 Apr 2018 at 13:49

Kirby Wurm said:
For £330 a 980 Ti is a much better bet, consistently faster and better at VR.

I wouldn't more than £250 for these kinds of cards.

ALXAndy · 8 Apr 2018 at 13:58

Don't do it. Trust me, don't do it..

I am running one. It's all well and good, until it runs out of VRAM. Then it turns into a slideshow. It didn't have enough then and it certainly doesn't have enough now. And the main issue with it is that at 1080p (where it just about has enough) it leans so hard on the CPU that you need a top end one. Ironically when you turn up the res and settings it starts to shine, then it runs out of VRAM

I installed FC5 recently on the rig (it's all fully WC with 480mm of rad space) and the mins at 1080p were actually worse than 2560x1600 using VSR on a 1050p monitor (16:10) however it then became very thin ice trying to tune it so that it would not go into HDD streaming mode (how they fixed it running out of VRAM, it used to just black screen and reboot the PC) and start using the paging file.

I got there in the end but it was way too much sodding around. Get a 1070, 980Ti or a Titan XM. At least you will have enough VRAM. I have had mine since launch (bought from Gregster) which is why I have not replaced it. I have it in my second rig.

jigger · 8 Apr 2018 at 15:45

ALXAndy said:
Don't do it. Trust me, don't do it..

I am running one. It's all well and good, until it runs out of VRAM. Then it turns into a slideshow. It didn't have enough then and it certainly doesn't have enough now. And the main issue with it is that at 1080p (where it just about has enough) it leans so hard on the CPU that you need a top end one. Ironically when you turn up the res and settings it starts to shine, then it runs out of VRAM

I installed FC5 recently on the rig (it's all fully WC with 480mm of rad space) and the mins at 1080p were actually worse than 2560x1600 using VSR on a 1050p monitor (16:10) however it then became very thin ice trying to tune it so that it would not go into HDD streaming mode (how they fixed it running out of VRAM, it used to just black screen and reboot the PC) and start using the paging file.

I got there in the end but it was way too much sodding around. Get a 1070, 980Ti or a Titan XM. At least you will have enough VRAM. I have had mine since launch (bought from Gregster) which is why I have not replaced it. I have it in my second rig.

Wired as the FuryX seems to out do the GTX980Ti as you increase resolution. Seem to remember when you could buy an EVGA 980Ti SOC new for £260, that the Fury X was the card to go for at high resolutions.

JediFragger · 8 Apr 2018 at 16:35

ALXAndy said:
I got there in the end but it was way too much sodding around. Get a 1070, 980Ti or a Titan XM. At least you will have enough VRAM. I have had mine since launch (bought from Gregster) which is why I have not replaced it. I have it in my second rig.

Damn, sorry to hear that ALX! Think I remember when you actually put that rig together!!

I know it cost a pretty penny, but kinda glad the Ti has 11GB of mem, gonna be a while before that runs out...

DONOHUE07 · 8 Apr 2018 at 19:25

Thanks guys, I won’t buy it

AthlonXP1800 · 8 Apr 2018 at 23:19

£330 for Fury X?

No way you will pay £330 for 3 years old second hand Fury X! Why would you pay that much while people bought second hand GTX 980 Ti for £150, second hand GTX 1070 for £250 on sold listing.

Second hand Fury X should cost less than £150.

ALXAndy · 9 Apr 2018 at 12:18

jigger said:
Wired as the FuryX seems to out do the GTX980Ti as you increase resolution. Seem to remember when you could buy an EVGA 980Ti SOC new for £260, that the Fury X was the card to go for at high resolutions.

It definitely improves, but as I said you then have the problem of VRAM. In games that don't use all of it it does very well, but those games are few and far between now. ROTTR for example just brings it to its knees. Certain levels of BLOPS III do too.

melmac · 9 Apr 2018 at 12:50

ALXAndy said:
It definitely improves, but as I said you then have the problem of VRAM. In games that don't use all of it it does very well, but those games are few and far between now. ROTTR for example just brings it to its knees. Certain levels of BLOPS III do too.

My brother has a Fury x and has none of these problems. He plays on a 1440p monitor and hasn't complained about FC5 or ROTTR. Mind you he only got ROTTR last year and plays in DX12 only.

ALXAndy · 9 Apr 2018 at 13:51

melmac said:
My brother has a Fury x and has none of these problems. He plays on a 1440p monitor and hasn't complained about FC5 or ROTTR. Mind you he only got ROTTR last year and plays in DX12 only.

ROTTR hates this card. At the time of launch I was running two, and the game used to go into an audio loop and crash the PC. So I removed one, tried again. Same issue. Turns out it was running out of VRAM and just crashing. That was at launch... The same issue used to happen on certain levels in BLOPS III too. Then AMD come out with a statement to say they have fixed the issue. So I retest.. Firstly in BLOPS III I deliberately load up the level. It starts off fine, then it drops down into the low 20s. Then I notice why.. It is using my paging file. So it uses the same method Nvidia were using years ago, which they called "Texture Streaming". They first did this for BF3, because most 1gb cards did not have enough VRAM. It kills the game and it kills you with the worst input lag EVER.

I monitor VRAM use when I game. I have to, I do not want to play at 20 FPS. Far Cry 5 was quite easy, but do bear in mind 1600p is higher than 1440p. Thus it will need more VRAM. I can't even play Fallout 4 on the card really. Well, not at acceptable levels. As soon as you go over 1080p on the latest release of FO4 it runs out of VRAM.

There are games that run fine on it of course. Games that are not VRAM heavy. Problem is most releases these days are VRAM heavy. 4gb was a talking point when the card launched. At time of launch it was quite easy to over run the VRAM buffer just using Shadow Of Mordor. AMD led us to believe that the speed of the VRAM and bandwidth would alleviate the lack of it. They lied.

It's a shame, because if the card had 8gb VRAM it would be problem free. But it isn't, and thus is not worth buying IMO. I would rather buy a brand new 1060. Not as fast overall, but has more VRAM and will therefore have less issues.

melmac · 9 Apr 2018 at 15:03

ALXAndy said:
ROTTR hates this card. At the time of launch I was running two, and the game used to go into an audio loop and crash the PC. So I removed one, tried again. Same issue. Turns out it was running out of VRAM and just crashing. That was at launch... The same issue used to happen on certain levels in BLOPS III too. Then AMD come out with a statement to say they have fixed the issue. So I retest.. Firstly in BLOPS III I deliberately load up the level. It starts off fine, then it drops down into the low 20s. Then I notice why.. It is using my paging file. So it uses the same method Nvidia were using years ago, which they called "Texture Streaming". They first did this for BF3, because most 1gb cards did not have enough VRAM. It kills the game and it kills you with the worst input lag EVER.

I monitor VRAM use when I game. I have to, I do not want to play at 20 FPS. Far Cry 5 was quite easy, but do bear in mind 1600p is higher than 1440p. Thus it will need more VRAM. I can't even play Fallout 4 on the card really. Well, not at acceptable levels. As soon as you go over 1080p on the latest release of FO4 it runs out of VRAM.

There are games that run fine on it of course. Games that are not VRAM heavy. Problem is most releases these days are VRAM heavy. 4gb was a talking point when the card launched. At time of launch it was quite easy to over run the VRAM buffer just using Shadow Of Mordor. AMD led us to believe that the speed of the VRAM and bandwidth would alleviate the lack of it. They lied.

It's a shame, because if the card had 8gb VRAM it would be problem free. But it isn't, and thus is not worth buying IMO. I would rather buy a brand new 1060. Not as fast overall, but has more VRAM and will therefore have less issues.

Guess you are just unlucky. My brother had trouble with fallout 4 at the start, but a driver update fixed his problems and it's been great ever since. Fallout 4 was extremely buggy on release no matter what card you had.

zophiel · 9 Apr 2018 at 16:28

didnt have problems with it rottr either. was running on a 1900x 1200 and furyx then got a 1440p asus freesync still no problems with that either.

Rezident · 9 Apr 2018 at 17:13

AthlonXP1800 said:
£330 for Fury X?

No way you will pay £330 for 3 years old second hand Fury X! Why would you pay that much while people bought second hand GTX 980 Ti for £150, second hand GTX 1070 for £250 on sold listing.

Second hand Fury X should cost less than £150.

My Fury (Pro - not even an X) sold for €335 recently - that's nearly £300, second hand. So presumably people must be paying more for Fury X. I also went from 290 to Fury and it was a very nice upgrade. Obviously I would prefer a Vega Re: OP's question, but considering new gpu prices, the Fury was only struggling with new games at 1440p, it should be fine at 1080.

LoadsaMoney · 9 Apr 2018 at 17:25

Im still surprised they never got done for false advertising