Fury non X was around 970 performance at the time.....
Remember AMD's drivers improve over time, at launch Fiji was total garbage.
-
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
Fury non X was around 970 performance at the time.....
Remember AMD's drivers improve over time, at launch Fiji was total garbage.
It bloody well was not, if i was i would have bought a GTX 980 for £70 less than i paid for my 970.
The Fury was £400 the 980 the same price and slower.
Last edited:
Overall very similar performance to a 970 in many games at the time. 970 wins most of the time, Fury non X wins some of the time.
970 = cheaper, quieter, cooler, cheaper to run, awesome software support, go figure why it outsold the fury 10000000:1
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Thats funny,how come Hexus showed otherwise??
Edit!!
I kind of know the people at Hexus too,want me to drop them a line??
Last edited:
Overall very similar performance to a 970 in many games at the time. 970 wins most of the time, Fury non X wins some of the time.
970 = cheaper, quieter, cooler, cheaper to run, awesome software support, go figure why it outsold the fury 10000000:1
Cherry picked 4 games out of 20 with the hope that no one would notice...... good grief
performance overall....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
bloody well ?
You forget some history here - Dave recently bought a new Nvidia laptop,so instantly everything Nvidia does is better and before he thought everything AMD does was better when he had a new AMD card.
Loadsofmoney,has buyers regret since he bought another R9 Fury and was shocked when multiple card support was a bit meh. This is despite even Nvidia not having launched a dual GPU card for years and even ditching multi-card support for the 60 series.
Basically loads of articles from places like Anandtech which said multi-card is hit and miss now with the new game engines,and the world+dog saying its a bad idea.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
there are so many horror stories about dual cards that I am "bloody well" staying away from them! Not worth the hassle for the few games they do work well with.
Cherry picked 4 games out of 20 with the hope that no one would notice...... good grief
performance overall....
I think you need glasses, the R9 Fury wins in 2 of the games I picked (Crysis3 and GTA5).
At the time or release, Fury driver support was bad. It improved over time, shocking, I know.
What an interesting article from Wccftech, full of guesses and estimations as usual.
The points that stood out for me.
AMD7300.5 = "AMD Radeon (TM) R9 Fury Series" = Vega 10.......er it has the same AMD7300 as all the other Fiji based cards and yet this one is Vega. Just out of interest what numbers do the other cards in AMD's stack of GPU's use?
One chart lists 20+ TFlops then the next one only list 12 TFlops.
On that note don't forget that for example the RX480 has 5.8 TFlops and the NV 1060 only has 4.3 TFlops and which of those is faster.
The Dracarys prototype board was Fiji based.
But to me the most worrying thing of all in that article was this lovely little nugget.
This could mean anything from, its just another iteration of GCN and not really any different, to, its completely different and AMD will drop all optimisation to everything that has gone before. Of course in actuality it will probably be somewhere in between.
My guess is that this new card will be a very expensive Fiji based pro card with the SSD stuck on it just like the prototype had and be of little interest to us as gamers.
The points that stood out for me.
AMD7300.5 = "AMD Radeon (TM) R9 Fury Series" = Vega 10.......er it has the same AMD7300 as all the other Fiji based cards and yet this one is Vega. Just out of interest what numbers do the other cards in AMD's stack of GPU's use?
One chart lists 20+ TFlops then the next one only list 12 TFlops.
On that note don't forget that for example the RX480 has 5.8 TFlops and the NV 1060 only has 4.3 TFlops and which of those is faster.
The Dracarys prototype board was Fiji based.
But to me the most worrying thing of all in that article was this lovely little nugget.
This could mean anything from, its just another iteration of GCN and not really any different, to, its completely different and AMD will drop all optimisation to everything that has gone before. Of course in actuality it will probably be somewhere in between.
My guess is that this new card will be a very expensive Fiji based pro card with the SSD stuck on it just like the prototype had and be of little interest to us as gamers.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,341
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yeah,still trying to find where this £200 to £240 GTX980 he was talking about existed at the time. If that was the case I would be having that card now.
The GTX980 barely got to £250ish with the GTX1060 being released!
The Fury was somewhat faster than a GTX980 but cost a bit more,but the price difference was not massive. Quite a few GTX980 cards were Fury price and we can see how Maxwell has fared in DX12/Vulkan - at least the GTX980TI is a beast. This is why the Fury X pricing was OTT especially with the cooler problems.
But then the price-performance champions were the GTX970 and R9 390. Neither the GTX980 or Fury were enough of a boost for the extra £150 to £200.
Just like the GTX1080 is not worth it over the GTX1070.
If anything AMD needs to counter the GTX1070 more than the GTX1080.
The 970 is at 83%
The 980 is at 93%
The Fury is at 100%
You're telling me i need glasses?
It did improve over time, as did the rest of AMD's cards, the R9 390X overtook the GTX 980, the Fury was always faster. i think your getting the Fury and R9 390X mixed up with your memory.
Last edited:
Dont people remember the recent rip off prices of AMD's higher end cards. Fury, Fury X, Nano, all were way overpriced.
Not a chance in hell a 1080 competitor will be sub 500 quid.
Also with the pound being the way it is card prices are only going to go up.
? I think you are trying to be some stalker type folk, but doing it wrong. I bought a laptop 9 months ago, so next time spend your life searching through my previous posts more carefully.
I own a Freesync monitor and Gsync monitor. A Gsync laptop (AMD had no competitive product, so wasn't a choice).
I also own a FuryX, 1070, 390X and countless other GPU's.
I feel that gives me a wide perspective when it comes to performance and features of these GPU's, though it's still on my opinion, agree or disagree with me, I don't really care
What can't be argued is that the Fury range of cards were absolutely terrible upon release, Maxwell was a much better choice and this is shown by the numbers of respective GPU's sold.
I continue to recommend RX480's over 1060's, as they are the better card in my eyes, though obviously cannot recommend any AMD card over a 1070 or above, as AMD cannot produce a competitive card in these brackets.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
Which one do you prefer? Just curious. I have an amazing Gsync, but no freesync to compare
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 766
- Location
- Peterboghorror
That simply isn't true. I was on the fence between a 980 and a Fury. I paid just over £400 for my Fury which was about the same as the 980 (cheaper than some, more than others)
? I think you are trying to be some stalker type folk, but doing it wrong. I bought a laptop 9 months ago, so next time spend your life searching through my previous posts more carefully.
I own a Freesync monitor and Gsync monitor. A Gsync laptop (AMD had no competitive product, so wasn't a choice).
I also own a FuryX, 1070, 390X and countless other GPU's.
I feel that gives me a wide perspective when it comes to performance and features of these GPU's, though it's still on my opinion, agree or disagree with me, I don't really care
What can't be argued is that the Fury range of cards were absolutely terrible upon release, Maxwell was a much better choice and this is shown by the numbers of respective GPU's sold.
I continue to recommend RX480's over 1060's, as they are the better card in my eyes, though obviously cannot recommend any AMD card over a 1070 or above, as AMD cannot produce a competitive card in these brackets.
So why would you make a claim that a 970 is faster than a Fury and then cherry pick a couple of slides to reinforce that claim, thats a lot of salt. who the #### reading this thread was that crap for?
Yeah, I think the poster claiming that is just trolling.
The Fury, especially now on mature drivers, is much faster. Techpowerup has it as ~33% faster at 1440p now.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
What about the X, that was more expensive than the 980 for around the same performance (was £550), it was even dearer than the much faster Ti, as i remember Nvidia dropped that down to £525.
Last edited:
- Status