Caporegime
The Fury X had slightly lower power consumption than a R9 290X if you looked at reviews which isolated power consumption for the card only like TPU. The Fury X was more comparable to an HD7970GE according to them.
-
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
The Fury X had slightly lower power consumption than a R9 290X if you looked at reviews which isolated power consumption for the card only like TPU. The Fury X was more comparable to an HD7970GE according to them.
Fury cards did not need a watercooler. The Nano which was essentially a Furyx Core had a small cooler on it. Fury cards did fine with AIB coolers. 290x was not hot and loud at all. Everyone knows the AMD reference cooler is not great. Slap a AIB cooler on and they are fine. My 290x at 1200Mhz never topped 74 degrees for me.
Soldato
While I agree with you that they're not credible, why is it that no-one points out how they spout nonsense when it's pro Nvidia but when it's pro AMD it's immediately jumped on as nonsense?
Because Nvidia is cool. AMD is not!
Nvidia is the best!
Best cards, best drivers, best management (they have the awesome leather jacket man) and most importantly according to some, best marketing!
Vega = 1080Ti? What utter nonsense. It will be lucky if it is 1070 performance!
Soldato
I'd be surprised if Vega isn't water cooled like the Fury X. The Vega Pro card they've just demo'd looked to be using water. At least I assume that's what the black braided pipes are at the front of the card.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3192...gas-ability-to-handle-8k-graphics-at-nab.html
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 541
With you there. My current card is a Fury Tri-X unlocked to 4096 CUs and clocked at 1070MHz. Never breaks 55C! It is the biggest lump you've ever seen, mind.
The Nano had quite clever power limiting functionality, essentially keeping the GPU in an efficient state at all times. Greatly little cards!
This is extremely positive. The MI25 sounds like a bit of a beast, particularly when considering current performance (12.5TFlops @ full precision) is based on early silicon and interposers.
Would not surprise me if a lot of the Vega wait over MI25 is in trying to get better yields and economics out of the interposers and HBM, which were renowned for being expensive on Fiji.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,006
Yes but we are talking reference coolers here, and you have to admit that AMD haven't got a great track record in this regard!! Hopefully it will change with Vega (although it didn't seem to with the 480)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,006
I'd be surprised if Vega isn't water cooled like the Fury X. The Vega Pro card they've just demo'd looked to be using water.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3192...gas-ability-to-handle-8k-graphics-at-nab.html
I personally wouldn't mind a water-cooled one, as long as they sort the QA issues out with them!!
I wonder if they will up their reference cooler game with Vega; we already know they did with Ryzen having far better stock coolers than Intel provides. I suppose it's a bit different with GPUs though because if AMD had a reference cooler that was cool and quiet, there'd be little for third party manufacturers to improve so they can increase their profit margins.
Caporegime
Id say my prediction of being lucky to beat the 1070 is looking more likely now then, as remember all those AMD own internal benchmarks of the Fury X, it was faster than the 980 Ti in every one of them, yet when it got released, and we got the actual reviews, the Ti smashed it, it was well beaten, it didn't even beat out the 980, so yup, take whatever they say its going to be, and scale it back
They've already said Vega will be water cooled like the Fury X, but custom cooled also, as i said further back in the thread, the water cooled version, is an AMD limited edition, that will come in that fancy LED box they've been showing off, they'll probably throw one of those t-shirts in as well
Soldato
Although most of what you said is true. AMD is not that bad.
Caporegime
Found some of them
Soldato
Found some of them
To be fair, at the time those were ... not entirely accurate but the Fury X was the quicker card at 4k on stock clocks. The inaccuracies arise when you consider the Ti overclocks by about 600000% (chip dependent) and the OC put the Ti considerably ahead (since the Fury had approximate 0.000000005% headroom).
Soldato
Id say my prediction of being lucky to beat the 1070 is looking more likely now then, as remember all those AMD own internal benchmarks of the Fury X, it was faster than the 980 Ti in every one of them, yet when it got released, and we got the actual reviews, the Ti smashed it, it was well beaten, it didn't even beat out the 980, so yup, take whatever they say its going to be, and scale it back
Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...
Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...
Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,006
Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...
[/IMG]
Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...
Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.
Look like cherry-picked games to me...
Associate
I know some of you guys mention the fury and not needing to be under water.. not sure if you are referring to just the fury or also the fury x
I would say most of the time the fury x doesn't need to be under water but using a single fury x playing bf1 (dx12) and doom (vulkan) at 4K (high settings) they really do need to be under water because thy get very hot..
And that's with mine having a push pull set up compared to how they came out the box..
I would say most of the time the fury x doesn't need to be under water but using a single fury x playing bf1 (dx12) and doom (vulkan) at 4K (high settings) they really do need to be under water because thy get very hot..
And that's with mine having a push pull set up compared to how they came out the box..
Soldato
My examples? Yes, because that's my point, blanket saying the Fury X is smashed by a 980Ti is a blatant lie when half the games it's faster...
I could cherry pick a bunch of games that show the 980Ti beating the Fury X as well.
The truth lies in the middle. The Fury X is a perfectly capable card and holds its own against both the 980Ti and 1070. Depending on the game they trade places.
Caporegime
Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...
[/IMG]
Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...
Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.
Yeah it is now, it took them a good 8 months or so after they released it, to get it up to the Ti, when they'd already lost the sales, same went for the 480, only 970 performance that upon release, 1060 walloped it, but a good 6 or so months later, and a few more drivers, it was up and beating the 1060, again though, when they'd already lost the sales.
They need to be there straight off the bat, as its on that release day, people want to buy, they lost a mountain of sales on the Fury X and 480 release days, as with being so poor on their releases, everyone just hit the buy button on the Ti and 1060s, but hopefully, with AMD saying they just about all working on Vega drivers, it could be different, we'll just have to wait and see, but if not, then again, AMD will be releasing a card, and sending Nvidias sales rocketing.
Haha. I was being sarcastic, but to be honest most of the people think this way. They think Nvidia is so ahead that the best AMD can do is 1070 performance which I find amusing
- Status