• 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 R9 Fury X Leaps Ahead Of Nvidia GTX 980 Ti With The Latest Windows 10 Drivers

humbug said:
Kaap, i don't know what you are trying to prove here but one thing you are saying is the Fury-X is only 70% the performance of a 980TI what you are also saying here is a Fury-X is only as fast as a GTX 970.

Now i looked at the Tomb Raider Banchmark thread here and there is a 290X in it which beats your Fury-X at a 1600P Run.

WTF are you playing at?

Click to expand...

You are looking at the wrong bench.:D

If you look at my posts again they say max settings.:)

That means you need to use the settings in the Tomb Raider Ultra bench that I run.:)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18654903
 
Kaapstad said:
None because there are no scores on the bench I run for a 290X @1600p.
Click to expand...


This is as high as i can get the settings.

Your score is 80% higher than mine, your GPU has 70% more shaders, how are you getting 115% scaling when the clock and shaders scaling is about 70%?

are you sure you are running at the same maximum settings for the 980TI? if you are that level of scaling is impossible.

 
humbug said:
This is as high as i can get the settings.

Your score is 80% higher than mine, your GPU has 70% more shaders, how are you getting 115% scaling when the clock and shaders scaling is about 70%?

are you sure you are running at the same maximum settings for the 980TI? if you are that level of scaling is impossible.

Click to expand...

I am also using higher clockspeeds and Samsung memory which has better timings than Hynix.:)
 
Kaapstad said:
I am also using higher clockspeeds and Samsung memory which has better timings than Hynix.:)
Click to expand...

You're over scaling to the tune of about a minimum of 20% or if actual scaling is anything to go by more like 40%

I ran that at 1.5Ghz and i have Samsung IC's, what are you running at 2.1Ghz?

 
humbug said:
This is as high as i can get the settings.

Your score is 80% higher than mine, your GPU has 70% more shaders, how are you getting 115% scaling when the clock and shaders scaling is about 70%?

are you sure you are running at the same maximum settings for the 980TI? if you are that level of scaling is impossible.
Click to expand...

Seems inline with the other entries at that resolution from 980Ti owners.
Kaapstad said:
1440p

1 GPU

  1. Score 69.6, Min 52.4, GPU TitanX @15092000, CPU 3930k @5.0, P.B Link 350.05 Drivers
    [*]Score 59.0, Min 42.0, GPU 980 Ti @1565/2002, CPU 4930k @4.0, Kaapstad Link 358.87 Drivers
    [*]Score 58.0, Min 40.0, GPU 980 Ti @1378/1993, CPU 5930k @4.6, spikerules Link 358.50 Drivers
    [*]Score 57.5, Min 40.0, GPU 980 Ti @1530/2000, CPU 4770k @4.5, Robzere31 Link 355.82 Drivers
  2. Score 56.8, Min 38.8, GPU TitanX @1407/2000, CPU 3930k @4.4, Gregster Link 355.82 Drivers
Click to expand...
 
humbug said:
You're over scaling to the tune of about a minimum of 20% or if actual scaling is anything to go by more like 40%

I ran that at 1.5Ghz and i have Samsung IC's, what are you running at 2.1Ghz?

Click to expand...

I am running at 1565/2002

And I am not overscaling, it is your maths.:D
 
Do your own Maths 70% more GPU does not = 80% higher performance ^^^

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Seems inline with the other entries at that resolution from 980Ti owners.
Click to expand...


Then i don't trust Nvidia's drivers, i have Distance Sprites LOD in BF4 that shouldn't be there, or at least wasn't there on the 290.

Distance Sprites LOD BTW is to replace textures and geometry in a distance with 2D textures so they don't need to be rendered, it increases performance at the cost of Image Quality.

Maybe AMD should do the same, lets all dumb down Image Quality to look good in benchmarks and sell MOAR GPU's.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Then i don't trust Nvidia's drivers,
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with NVidia drivers !!!

They just come with built in obsolescence. Once a card reaches a certain age (about 3 years) they blow up requiring the user to purchase another green team product.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
Nothing wrong with NVidia drivers !!!

They just come with built in obsolescence. Once a card reaches a certain age (about 3 years) they blow up requiring the user to purchase another green team product.:D
Click to expand...


There is an ongoing argument that AMD have better IQ, i never bought much into that as i can't tell a lot of difference with my 970 but i'm starting to now because for one there is a good reason to dumb down IQ in order to look good in paper reviews. another is the perculier scaling Nvidia's more expensive cards have vs the cheaper ones, another way to sell MOAR for MOAR.
 
Quick fact for you, Kaaps has never actually "played" a game.:D

I don't listen to benchmark scores tbh. heaven, 3dmark and the like are fun and all for a bit of competition, but i'd never use it as a way of deciding which card was the best to go for.

few months back after the Fury X launched i did a few fps tests using witcher 3 maxed out with all the hairworks stuff on and maxed, my fury Xs at stock were able to stick with and beat Sli ti's by a fair bit in places at 1440P.

But of course that doesn't make it the fastest card, it's been a disappointing launch no doubt about that, but as a graphics card to pop in a system and play some games, i believe the Fury X is just as good as a 980Ti.

It's just a shame that as a complete package, with the lack of voltage control, driver and other software, the wait for CF profiles and as it stands atm, the poor overclocking ability, it's not as good as a Ti.

Regardless i'm happy enough, going to keep then until the next round of cards then sell and move on, we've been stuck at 28nm for far to long.
 
uksoldierboy said:
Quick fact for you, Kaaps has never actually "played" a game.:D

I don't listen to benchmark scores tbh. heaven, 3dmark and the like are fun and all for a bit of competition, but i'd never use it as a way of deciding which card was the best to go for.

few months back after the Fury X launched i did a few fps tests using witcher 3 maxed out with all the hairworks stuff on and maxed, my fury Xs at stock were able to stick with and beat Sli ti's by a fair bit in places at 1440P.

But of course that doesn't make it the fastest card, it's been a disappointing launch no doubt about that, but as a graphics card to pop in a system and play some games, i believe the Fury X is just as good as a 980Ti.

It's just a shame that as a complete package, with the lack of voltage control, driver and other software, the wait for CF profiles and as it stands atm, the poor overclocking ability, it's not as good as a Ti.

Regardless i'm happy enough, going to keep then until the next round of cards then sell and move on, we've been stuck at 28nm for far to long.
Click to expand...

Kaapstad does Game, I have done about 6 hours today for example and I am not done yet.:D

As to VC for the Fury X I think we will see it and only then should tech sites do proper comparisons.

Hopefully at the same time we will get some serious tweaking options for the memory. If 8 Pack can run the memory at over 1000mhz on a LN2 bench we should be able to do a little better than around 500mhz on air.
 
Kaapstad said:
GTX 970 = 1664 SPs
GTX 980 Ti = 2816 SPs

1664/2816= 0.5909 x 100 = 59.09%

My Score 59.0fps x 59.09% = 34.86fps for a GTX 970 running 1565/2002 clockspeed.
Click to expand...

1664 + 70% = 2828

33.6 + 70% = 57.1

Your Score is 59, thats 105% Scaling, GPU clock rates do not scale 100%, if you get 100 FPS @ 1000Mhz you don't get 110FPS at 1100Mhz, its about 107 FPS, MHZ scaling is about 7 in 10 at best, the other .3 comes from the memory architecture

So with all that considered your GPU is scaling about 30% higher than it should.
 
humbug said:
1664 + 70% = 2828

33.6 + 70% = 57.1

Your Score is 59, thats 105% Scaling, GPU clock rates do not scale 100%, if you get 100 FPS @ 1000Mhz you don't get 110FPS at 1100Mhz, its about 107 FPS, MHZ scaling is about 7 in 10 at best, the other .3 comes from the memory architecture

So with all that considered your GPU is scaling about 30% higher than it should.
Click to expand...

I think all the other scores in that thread would disagree with you as my 980 Ti is in line with the other 980 Ti and TitanXs.

Even Uncle Petey has a 980 Ti score in that thread that is in line with the others.

As to clockspeeds you have not even tried to use the same ones as I did (it should be easy on a 970 to get 1565/2002) so you don't know what the result will be.

You are also using a FX-9590 which is not quite as efficient as a 4930k.
 
Last edited:
I'm also running DSR instead of proper 1440P which we know has higher performance, and my GPU is at 99% all the time, there is no CPU bottlenecking. ^^^

Kaapstad said:
I think all the other scores in that thread would disagree with you as my 980 Ti is in line with the other 980 Ti and TitanXs.

Even Uncle Petey has a 980 Ti score in that thread that is in line with the others.
Click to expand...


Yeah i see that

980TI @ 1565: 59 FPS
TX @ 1509: 69 FPS (+22% including clocks)

980TI: 2816 SP's + 22% = 3435 SP's

How many SP's does the TX have?
More Driver side IQ gimping to make it look that much faster?
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
There is an ongoing argument that AMD have better IQ, i never bought much into that as i can't tell a lot of difference with my 970 but i'm starting to now because for one there is a good reason to dumb down IQ in order to look good in paper reviews. another is the perculier scaling Nvidia's more expensive cards have vs the cheaper ones, another way to sell MOAR for MOAR.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom