• 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.

****Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread****

David Kanter has posted his thoughts on Fiji, but please don't post the link here.

Cliff notes: architectural balance, dark silicon, gameworks, drivers & GCN showing its age a bit now. One interesting little note at the end was he said Intel might replace HMC with HBM.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
David Kanter has posted his thoughts on Fiji, but please don't post the link here.

Cliff notes: architectural balance, dark silicon, gameworks, drivers & GCN showing its age a bit now.
Click to expand...

Is that that guy that could talk tom logan under the table?

Ed: just checked, 2 hours of techno babble :o
 
Last edited:
http://m.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/6#.VY35nGK9KSM


Says it all really, yet some people thought pixy dust and special mushrooms would magically make 4gb bigger than 4Gb.

It's just ashame that when the FuryX really starts to shine (4K maxed out on demanding games) the FPS is just too low anyway and it hits its VRAM limit. An 8Gb version in xfiles would be insanely performant but looks like we would have to wauit until next year.

This is a typically problem for AMD. They do innovate a lot, they often try to push technologi la boundaries and try to push new tech as soon as possible. But they are typically too quick off the mark and push things when they are not ready. HBM is a classic example, it is great that they out so much resources in to it and have proved to the world how it is possible to make a co ericls product with it. Pity it just isn't needed yet and comes with plenty of its own issues, limited capacity and complex manufacturing for starters. Hopefully it gives them a big head start in 2016 and they get a later pay off, since Nvida will have to ham algae a trifecta of new process node, new architecture and new memory system. AMD just have 2 of those,to concern themselves with. For this gen it is pretty clear they should have stuck with GDDR5 and concentrated on getting their efficiency close to maxwell and drivers up to spec. Imagine Maxwell efficiency, 512bit bus and 8GB of GDDR5. Nvida would be smoked.
 
D.P. said:
http://m.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/6#.VY35nGK9KSM


Says it all really, yet some people thought pixy dust and special mushrooms would magically make 4gb bigger than 4Gb.

It's just ashame that when the FuryX really starts to shine (4K maxed out on demanding games) the FPS is just too low anyway and it hits its VRAM limit. An 8Gb version in xfiles would be insanely performant but looks like we would have to wauit until next year.
Click to expand...

hehe you been trying the special mushrooms!
0_0
 
ubersonic said:
TPU have always been my favourite site (since Toms ruined their UI) but That is one biased review lol. Regardless, from the reviews my interest in the reference Fury has ended, bring on the MSI Gaming :D
Click to expand...

There won't be an msi gaming. The fury x is reference only, no aib. Look at linus review
 
I would be very wary of buying this card if you game at 4k and most definitely don't buy more than 1. I'm not into bashing AMD at all by the way, this is for the benefit of the forum members making a buying decision.

Loading Witcher 3 at playable framerate settings I see 3-4GB used, no problem for Fury X here, 2 of them would allow you to push the settings and certainly enable higher MSAA so I would be concerned with only 4GB at this point.

GTA 5 however is another story at playable settings for a single TX I am using 4GB of vram immediately on story load so probably very little cached here. More than 2 Fury X's for 4k GTA 5 would immediately hit vram issues assuming you used the extra grunt for settings that increased vram usage.
 
straxusii said:
I would be very wary of buying this card if you game at 4k and most definitely don't buy more than 1. I'm not into bashing AMD at all by the way, this is for the benefit of the forum members making a buying decision.

Loading Witcher 3 at playable framerate settings I see 3-4GB used, no problem for Fury X here, 2 of them would allow you to push the settings and certainly enable higher MSAA so I would be concerned with only 4GB at this point.

GTA 5 however is another story at playable settings for a single TX I am using 4GB of vram immediately on story load so probably very little cached here. More than 2 Fury X's for 4k GTA 5 would immediately hit vram issues assuming you used the extra grunt for settings that increased vram usage.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be wary at all with two cards, simply for the fact that I'm seeing noticeably lower Video Memory usage at 4K using the FuryX.

Check this out, smooth 50-60fps gameplay playing GTA V maxed out with MSAA at x4 and look how much video memory usage 3663MB. :)

It's amazing what can be done when you improve video memory utilisation at driver level.

2uhu96u.jpg

685tmq.jpg

Shadow of Mordor with the High Res Texture pack plays nicely too and what does that use 6.5GB of GDDR5 at 4K? :)
 
With 2 or more, you are likely to run into the VRAM limit before you exhaust the GPU power.

Comparing to a TX is not entirely fair, though, as it appears to use up VRAM quicker than either a 980ti or Fury X.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...erformance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/2

Not sure why this is. Maybe due to the TX's very generous amount of VRAM, NVIDIA are less aggressive in keeping VRAM usage to a minimum.
 
AMDMatt said:
I wouldn't be wary at all with two cards, simply for the fact that I'm seeing noticeably lower Video Memory usage at 4K using the FuryX.

Check this out, smooth 50-60fps gameplay playing GTA V maxed out with MSAA at x4 and look how much video memory usage 3663MB. :)

It's amazing what can be done when you improve video memory utilisation at driver level.

2uhu96u.jpg

685tmq.jpg

Shadow of Mordor with the High Res Texture pack plays nicely too and what does that use 6.5GB of GDDR5 at 4K? :)
Click to expand...

How about some videos to give an idea of how smooth it is at 4k.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
How about some videos to give an idea of how smooth it is at 4k.
Click to expand...

Because it drops FPS to 35-40 when having it (GE APP/PlaysTV) running in the background and 30-35 locked when recording making it unplayable. When the software gets updated I'll be posting some vids though.
 
Sorry Matt, I like your presence in these forums, but I'm not sure you can be objective about Fury X.

To be clear I like AMD and have had many great AMD cards, if I look back on what I think was the best card I have purchased in the last 10 years I would choose the 5870.

I think AMD have done a good job with the Fury X, ~same performance as a 980Ti, same price, far quieter and first to market with HBM. Obviously to hit the price point and performance of the 980Ti more than 4GB HBM wasn't an option.

Many titles will run fine at 4k on 1 or more Fury X, some titles won't. I've only looked at W3 and GTA5 vram usage personally, and I suspect they are at the top end, but GTA 5 right now is a problem for >1 Fury X with respect to vram.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom