I thought that but Lord Zed has a 980ti so then I thought maybe not.
-
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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
I thought that but Lord Zed has a 980ti so then I thought maybe not.
I'm saying mgpu's crap because of the lack of profiles, never got microstutter on XDMA, they even had mgpu running like Free/G-Sync on Mantle, maybe AMD's hardware/drivers are just simply better at low level api's and Nv need to get their finger out?
Would be amazing if one of them could nail mgpu running flawlessly in the same fashion as a single gpu, but I doubt it's as profitable to them as selling new hardware.
Anyway, from our pov judging on profile support alone, they shouldn't but from a business pov AMD have got to emulate Nv's aggressive marketing.
Why shouldn't they considering Nv market products that don't do features that are advertised on the actual packaging, the bottom line is, if mgpu works on a select amount of titles, they will market it.
On release it could be had for £525 so if AMD release a card at 1080 performance for £500 a year after it will be so underwhelming
+1
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Yeah, first thing I checked and it's a no
Clocks to 1100 on the core though so at least that's something...
You sure it can't be done? I thought pretty much all of them can get half the shaders unlocked.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Not the newer ones, apparently. I imagine some do but I've heard a couple of others saying that their Fury card won't unlock, one was a Nitro too which is a shame as I was under the impression that they would be the better engineered ones due to being Sapphires newer design, But with all the coil whine complaints I'm starting to doubt that, plus they don't seem to do much better at overclocking either, I thought that was likely why Sapphire did them with a new pcb, We never seem to hear much user feedback for AMD's Fury strix either do we? That was also supposed to be engineered for better overclocking.
Last edited:
Mine doesn't unlock either (fury nitro), it stays cool and quiet though. I set it to 1100 on the core with no voltage bump, never tried upping the voltage though as I dont see the point and I dont have the best air flow due to the rads running fans at low RPM.
I'm looking forward to Vega though, I'm sure I'll get one of them at somepoint.
Although I'd still go nvidia if they were better value and forget about freesync.
I'm looking forward to Vega though, I'm sure I'll get one of them at somepoint.
Although I'd still go nvidia if they were better value and forget about freesync.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
1100's not bad without voltage, I run my oc tri-x at stock (1040/500) day to day but when I bench for the threads here I go with 1130 with 60mv.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
What memory speed you guys running at? Tried 545 but I get artifacts now and again in Division (only one part though strangely, the DZ)
Did you push the Power Limit to 50%?
Have you installed the AMD UEFI Bios they released last year? (Around March - April time)
By using it, my Nano at stock speeds gained some perf, but the biggest benefit was the overclocking became more stable and all way to 1150/550 (1100 effective).
And that on a Nano which is power limited. A Fury and FuryX can gain more by using the respective AMD Fury UEFI Bios upgrade.
This is what pandem0nium, manged with mine on the time spy benchmark.
Fury P @1185/570, GFX Score 5272, CPU Score 7240, CPU 6800k @4.2, , Post No.0374 - Link Drivers 16.7.2
I never managed to try the memory as the slider was greyed out, I just set the core to 1100, power limit to 50% and left it at that.
Is there a link? To that bios? Would it work on my Asus fury x? It won't take more than 515 on the mem without corruption. Adding voltage or power limit doesn't seem to do much to help. Clocks to 1130 on core though.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
As a rule I leave the memory untouched as it's not worth doing imo, I've tried it at 540, 550 and 560 all of which worked with what I was testing it with at the time but I've no idea about overall stability as I don't leave the overclocks on, As long as the memory overclock works with whatever I'm benching with no artifacting I call it a win and then go back to stock clocks sfter the bench run.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
That's a good result, Is that with the mentioned AMD Bio's update?
If there's an official Fury pro bio's I'd like the link too please, It's the first time I've heard of it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
No man, never knew it existed!!! Got a link at all? And yes, upped the Power limit in AB
edit - Seems like the Bios' are for the Nano & X only
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
It might be a poor overclocker because the unlocked cores were locked off due to unstability. That's partly why I didn't try unlocking mine even though it says I can, that alongside the fact that I don't have a clue about how to update a gpu bio's.
No man, never knew it existed!!! Got a link at all? And yes, upped the Power limit in AB
edit - Seems like the Bios' are for the Nano & X only
Shame.
At least it's not willy waving brand wars still.
Plus we need something to talk about so when there is something Vega to discuss you can guarantee it'll be discussed here.
Last edited:
No man, never knew it existed!!! Got a link at all? And yes, upped the Power limit in AB
edit - Seems like the Bios' are for the Nano & X only
Yes normal Furys use their manufacturer Firmware and all of them had UEFI or their manufacturer released one.
Same applies to Fury Pro. The card is using firmware from the AIBs.
However ALL the Nanos and FuryX are made by AMD regardless the "brand" so here is the post from last April adding UEFI support to the cards, which they had none.
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2016/04/05/radeon-r9-fury-nano-uefi-firmware
And is has worked on my Sapphire Nano.
For those interested on BIOS mod their Fury (non X) and try to see if they can unlock more shaders and improve overclocks if not happy, visit the corresponding discussion about BIOS editing at OC.NET
Make sure your card has Dual Bios (FuryX & Nanos do).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Ok thanks for the info Panos, I'll keep further Fury discussion in the Fury thread 
I'm hoping for TXP performance at £800
Though 1080 performance at £500 sounds more likely, fingers crossed.Decided long ago that £800 is my budget for Vega, though that's dependant on it having the performance expected at that price point etc.
- Status