AMD Fiji Thread

Orangey · 24 Jun 2015 at 04:45

I'm not expecting it to be a bed of roses, there'll likely be problems with a fair few titles and/or benches which will require a driver to iron out. Speaking from experience with both brands.

You can probably disregard the weird-looking stuff for now.

gerardfraser · 24 Jun 2015 at 05:01

I was expecting the Fury X to be equal in games,win some,lose some looks good for most benches.
AIO Cooling same price as Reference 980Ti.There are some weird scorces there though.

Have to wait to compare to my Titan X scores also.MY Fury X are processed and will be shipping in the morning.Can not wait to play with that card.

AlamoX · 24 Jun 2015 at 05:36

results are good, but not good enough for AMD to keep hyping the card up the way they did.
so am hoping legit reviews will give FuryX better bench results, cause if not i think AMD really should make changes in the marketing department.

AthlonXP1800 · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:03

In COD:AW Fury X is as fast as GTX 980!

Fury X will not run well on GTA V if it use Ultra preset.

Dicehunter · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:26

If those numbers are legit I am severely underwhelmed.

Mynight · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:31

Turning into furby

. Nah I can't believe those are real

.

They don't stack up with the other leaked benches so which are wrong :confused:

. Edit: both are probably wrong.

Lokken86 · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:32

Why is the 290x higher than a 980ti in the far cry bench.

If those fury x results are correct im not buying one.

Bonjour · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:39

Colour me nonplussed.

Silent_Scone · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:42

If it was any better we'd have seen it by now. Cant say I'm surprised but pretty disappointed. Hopefully someone will put up some less underwhelming results.

Toss3 · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:45

Very much doubt those are real, considering the hardware changes for every benchmark. There's little chance that the Fury X is slower than the 290x at 4K. Just wait a couple of hours and we'll know more.

Kirby Wurm · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:48

Also in one of the benches an OC 980 beats a Ti, is that even possible? I know the 980 can OC brilliantly but surely the difference is too big to gap.

Toss3 · 24 Jun 2015 at 06:52

The 290x also beats the 980 ti in Far Cry 4.

ICDP · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:12

I think a lot of people were expecting a TX/Ti killer and are as a result disappointed with these figures. If they turn out true then Fury is exactly where I expected Fury X to be, trading blows with Nvidia at the high end.

People need to remember the 980Ti is less than a month old and it marginalised the Titan X which is only 3 months old. Now AMD are back, trading blows in price/perf and this can only be a good thing for us as consumers and enthusiasts.

FlanK3r · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:23

some drops in min FPS are strange. Seems as (maybe) driver issue or limit of 4GB memory limit? What I know, COD is very hungry for memory size.

PakJai · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:26

I'd like to think of the dip in performance to be a driver issue. At least it's fixable overtime.

SiDeards73 · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:29

Think I will wait for a few more credible sources of reviews and benchmarks before I declare it a fail based on some benchmarks from sites I've never even heard of before

northwestdakota · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:32

If those benches are right, 650 launch day price would be silly.

Bonjour · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:33

I'd like to see some 1440p benchmarks.

shamus21 · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:50

If those Bench marks are real then the sooner AMD off load the Graphic card Business the better.

Harlequin · 24 Jun 2015 at 07:51

because they can match the latest and best of Nvidia - with brand new tech *HBM*......

I can fully understand why Nvidia panicked and rushed out the GTX 980Ti now - screwing over all those who bought a TitanX

Competitor rules

**AMD Fiji Thread**

AMD Fiji Thread