• 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 Radeon R9 Nano coming next week

Status
Not open for further replies.
JediFragger said:
I reckon this is the article that got HardOCP into trouble. Shows the G1 absolutely toasting the FX alive!! It's like it's a gen ahead once overclocked!! :cool: :D
Click to expand...

Those results are BS of that i'm certain, i ran Witcher 3 maxed out @1440P including hairworks maxed, both with one fury X then CF, using one card my Fps average was around 55-60fps.

In fact as i posted about before, my Fps in witcher 3 were the same and quite a bit faster in some areas than SLI overclocked 980Tis.
 
uksoldierboy said:
Those results are BS of that i'm certain, i ran Witcher 3 maxed out @1440P including hairworks maxed, both with one fury X then CF, using one card my Fps average was around 55-60fps.

In fact as i posted about before, my Fps in witcher 3 were the same and quite a bit faster in some areas than SLI overclocked 980Tis.
Click to expand...

I remember you stating that. All I'll say is that HardOCP may have had a more stringent approach maybe ?(although I'm not doubting your results). If HardOCP were the odd one out I'd smell something fishy, but all the other sites seem to concur.

Some better news is that the latest Fury drivers seem to be getting some good gains of late!
 
JediFragger said:
I remember you stating that. All I'll say is that HardOCP may have had a more stringent approach maybe ?(although I'm not doubting your results). If HardOCP were the odd one out I'd smell something fishy, but all the other sites seem to concur.

Some better news is that the latest Fury drivers seem to be getting some good gains of late!
Click to expand...

No worries bud, yeah latest drivers are giving more performance it seems, what we NEED though is unlocked voltage.

In truth i don't care for a lot of the crap that people talk about when it comes to the Fury X, the simple fact is that if they weren't as good as 980Ti's they'd not be in my system (Still maintain that the 980 SC's i had are the best gpus i've owned as a package)

But i totally agree that in regards to the actual launch, it'd been truly one of the worst i can remember, the whole "Overclockers dream" was/is total BS from AMD at the moment, if it's not, i can't understand why AMD aren't breathing down Unwinders neck, giving him a X to play with etc or pushing Asus to get the latest GPUTweak out.
 
uksoldierboy said:
No worries bud, yeah latest drivers are giving more performance it seems, what we NEED though is unlocked voltage.
Click to expand...

Problem is, I'm not convinced that voltage adjustment will be a 'solve-all' for Fury overclockng! I mean, the 290-series weren't exactly renowned for their massive gains :eek:

And I agree, absolutely LOVE my ACX 2.0 980 SC cards, bloody class :cool:
 
Orangey said:
Who is this Anal Tunneler bloke?

Sickening to see these hacks piling on AMD when they're down, just so they can feel powerful. Let's see you put NV's business in the street too if you're such a big deal.
Click to expand...

How exactly are hardocp hacks? As i said above they invited kyle to the 30th gaming anniversary last year, so apparently at that point they weren't hacks. Or is this the standard pick and choose bias depending on the sites opinion at the time?
 
HardOCP benchmarks have 6 games of which 5 are Gameworks games. Chosen to make Nvidia look good and AMD bad? Definitely looks that way.

edit: Farcry 4 on FuryX is faster than a 980Ti and TitanX according to these sites..

Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/19

Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,review-33235-4.html

Techspot
http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/page7.html

But HardOCP show the FuryX trailing behind a standard 980Ti....
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/7#.VfC6xfQWiMo

Who's telling the truth?
 
Last edited:
fs123 said:
HardOCP benchmarks have 6 games of which 5 are Gameworks games. Chosen to make Nvidia look good and AMD bad? Definitely looks that way.

edit: Farcry 4 on FuryX is faster than a 980Ti and TitanX according to these sites..

Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/19

Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,review-33235-4.html

Techspot
http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/page7.html

But HardOCP show the FuryX trailing behind a standard 980Ti....
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/7#.VfC6xfQWiMo

Who's telling the truth?
Click to expand...

Benchmarks across sites generally do differ as different sites will use different areas of games for their testing. If they were all running timedemos using the same settings and levels then you'd see pretty consistent results. But with some sites we don't really know what levels they use which makes results differ a lot. Also hardocp's testing methods are somewhat different from other sites.
 
I used to like Hardocp But if they have that many gameworks titles in their testing suite no **** they ain't getting a card. The amount of noise they are making about this is really making me think they protest to much. "Hey, I don't really care but, but, but..."

I'm really past caring on this matter, just wanna see a few reviews and move onto the next thing.
 
muziqaz said:
finally AMD is growing some balls. people always say that AMD needs to be more like nvidia more aggressive. There you go. At last AMD blacklisting review sites who constantly are crapping on AMD products.
Click to expand...

Sites don't generally crap on good products no matter the vendor. If a product is good regardless of opinion it gets a good review.
 
fs123 said:
HardOCP benchmarks have 6 games of which 5 are Gameworks games. Chosen to make Nvidia look good and AMD bad? Definitely looks that way.

edit: Farcry 4 on FuryX is faster than a 980Ti and TitanX according to these sites..

Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/19

Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,review-33235-4.html

Techspot
http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/page7.html

But HardOCP show the FuryX trailing behind a standard 980Ti....
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/7#.VfC6xfQWiMo

Who's telling the truth?
Click to expand...

Hardocp used a 4.8ghz 3770k
All the rest used stock/low clocked 6-8 core CPU's, it would seem that farcry4 likes CPU clocks

If you look at say the BF4 results they are much more similar across the various sites
 
Last edited:
The big releases lately have been GameWorks games. If they avoid them, it would look biased to AMD, so damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Anyways, so is the Nano coming soon? Seems to be taking forever lol.
 
Gregster said:
The big releases lately have been GameWorks games. If they avoid them, it would look biased to AMD, so damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Anyways, so is the Nano coming soon? Seems to be taking forever lol.
Click to expand...

1pm today and in stock. :)
 
andybird123 said:
Hardocp used a 4.8ghz 3770k
All the rest used stock/low clocked 6-8 core CPU's, it would seem that farcry4 likes CPU clocks

If you look at say the BF4 results they are much more similar across the various sites
Click to expand...

So are you saying that when the cpu clock goes up the FuryX slows down? Doesn't make sense. If a gpu is leading in a benchmark then it stands to reason that it will maintain that lead when the cpu speed is increased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom