Soldato
Is the fury worth it or should I wait for a GTX 1060.
There Fury will probably be faster. It's more of a 1440p card.
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.
Is the fury worth it or should I wait for a GTX 1060.
Nano/Fury is minimum 20% faster than a 390, and in many situations around 50% faster.
That 4GB isn't going to hold it back for a while yet.
I've seen a chart of gpu ram usage that shows the hbm cards using less ram than their gddr5 counterparts at the same graphics settings. So 4GB might last longer than we expect. I mean that the cards might run out of grunt to deliver a good framerate before it runs out of ram.
Looking at the steam hardware survey it seems that 8 GB is far from the norm so games won't target this for a while
4GB already limits the Fury in several titles. Also they are now end of life - AMD are not making any more - if these were capable cards that sold well, they wouldn't have discontinued production....
I'd recommend a 1060 over a Fury any day of the week - 2GB more VRAM, cheaper, 16nm vs 28nm, brand new architecture vs 2 year old Fiji architecture.
It's not just big it's massive.
Man, don't waste your time. He didn't even bother replying to my comment about differences between HBM and GDDR5 and keeps repeating the same (mis)information about 4GB on the Fury not being enough. No idea what people gain from doing stuff like that.
You must be joking, right? Now if you were talking about a 980Ti, which is in the same (and above on DX11 and overclocking) tier as the Fury X, people would actually take you seriously.
Its not misinformation, we already have games here now needing more, and theres more coming.
I'm not joking at all, after having played around with a Fury card, I found it hit it's VRAM limits in a few different games. I personally think people are very foolish spending £300+ on a 4GB GPU in 2016, given the way games are going VRAM wise.
Remember NVIDIA dominate the market, they have a huge market share advantage. Now that their 1070 and 1080 cards have 8GB VRAM, and even their mid range 1060 has 6GB, you can be sure developers will be pressured to increase games VRAM usage.
4GB already limits the Fury in several titles. Also they are now end of life - AMD are not making any more - if these were capable cards that sold well, they wouldn't have discontinued production....
I'd recommend a 1060 over a Fury any day of the week - 2GB more VRAM, cheaper, 16nm vs 28nm, brand new architecture vs 2 year old Fiji architecture.
I'm not joking at all, after having played around with a Fury card, I found it hit it's VRAM limits in a few different games. I personally think people are very foolish spending £300+ on a 4GB GPU in 2016, given the way games are going VRAM wise.
People do like to say it's not enough, but always go quiet when you ask them for actual examples of games which are causing the Fury range to buckle. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a game which has been held up as an example of one which uses an obscene amount of VRAM. It even comes with its own warning message when you enable Very High textures that you absolutely 100% need a >4GB card for them. So it's perfect to show off the Fury X's crippling minimums as it stutters its way through the game, right?
Oh. I guess not. But that one's an anomaly! I bet if we looked at another VRAM hog like Shadow of Mordor, we'll see the Fury X exposed!
...Er, maybe we can try XCOM 2?
****! Well, screw all this so-called "evidence" anyway. I know for a fact that 4GB HBM isn't enough and the Fury X is a stutterfest. Take my word for it, guys.