• 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.

Dark days, AMD share price at lowest ever.

D.P. said:
Until now:(
Click to expand...
Tbf, the fury x is pretty similar in performance to the 980ti. Sadly though availability is shockingly poor.

humbug said:
The 8 Cores do a lot better under DX12, out performing i5's, with engines well optimised for Physics the 8 cores do as well as the Ivy i7's in DX11, both outperforming the i5's.

They are not great and i have had plenty to say about it, but they are also not all that bad, at the price point they are actually very competitive to Intel's offerings.

The problem with most things at the moment is under DX11 AMD CPU's can only utilise 12.5% of their total power, that changes with DX12
Click to expand...
I expect too but that Intel chips will see a bit of an increase too under DX12. I've owned Ivybridge i5 and i7 prior to haswell. Performance difference between each was pretty small.
 
setter said:
Tbf, the fury x is pretty similar in performance to the 980ti. Sadly though availability is shockingly poor.

I expect too but that Intel chips will see a bit of an increase too under DX12. I've owned Ivybridge i5 and i7 prior to haswell. Performance difference between each was pretty small.
Click to expand...

The 4 core i7''s are about 20% faster clock for clock than an i5, but only with all of its threads utilised.

The i7 are the same as the i5's, they just have an extra thread to each core adding about 5% to each core

In DX11 DrawCalls only one thread is used, in the case of an i5 its 25% of total power, for an i7 its 20%, for an FX-8350 its 12.5%.

DX12 will use 6 or more threads, for an i5 its anything up to a 400% increase, its a bit more for the i7's with all 4 main threads and 4 hyper-threads, about 500%, for an FX-8350 its a 600% increase.
(And thats not counting lower overheads)

Of course that still put it behind an i7, but the performance is a lot closer and with that may DrawCalls its going to be impossible for the first few years to saturate any of those CPU's.
 
Last edited:
Don't think I'd want to judge anything until games are actually out and we can see comparisons when it comes to games with DX12 and CPU's. I'm still waiting on the heralded FX83 ownage of the i5.

And Humbug, isn't your math wrong?
If the extra thread added 5% to each core, it'd only ever be 5% improvement, regardless of the amount of cores used.
 
humbug said:
The 4 core i7''s are about 20% faster clock for clock than an i5, but only with all of its threads utilised.

The i7 are the same as the i5's, they just have an extra thread to each core adding about 5% to each core

In DX11 DrawCalls only one thread is used, in the case of an i5 its 25% of total power, for an i7 its 20%, for an FX-8350 its 12.5%.

DX12 will use 6 or more threads, for an i5 its anything up to a 400% increase, its a bit more for the i7's with all 4 main threads and 4 hyper-threads, about 500%, for an FX-8350 its an 600% increase.
(And thats not counting lower overheads)

Of course that still put it behind an i7, but the performance is a lot closer and with that may DrawCalls its going to be impossible for the first few years to saturate any of those CPU's.
Click to expand...
Will be pretty interesting to see what skylake brings next month too. The current Z97 is pretty much eol now.
 
setter said:
Will be pretty interesting to see what skylake brings next month too. The current Z97 is pretty much eol now.
Click to expand...

I think Skylake will bring as much to the table as Haswell did.
So little in terms of performance progression, but it'll probably be pretty efficient CPU wise.
 
Martini1991 said:
Don't think I'd want to judge anything until games are actually out and we can see comparisons when it comes to games with DX12 and CPU's. I'm still waiting on the heralded FX83 ownage of the i5.

And Humbug, isn't your math wrong?
If the extra thread added 5% to each core, it'd only ever be 5% improvement, regardless of the amount of cores used.
Click to expand...

My maths is a bit out yes, its 5 percentage points to each core. the HT thread isn't used for DrawCalls, which is why in a lot of games the performance i5 vs i7 is the same, but in games that use a lot of threads for Physics it can make a difference.

For example... this is scaling by threads.

Why? Bullet Physics.



 
setter said:
Tbf, the fury x is pretty similar in performance to the 980ti. Sadly though availability is shockingly poor.

l.
Click to expand...

It IS slower though, significantly so at lower resolutions, more expensive and has 2/3rds of the vram. That simply isn't competitive really.


Cut the price down to around 430 and it will be a great card.
 
D.P. said:
It IS slower though, significantly so at lower resolutions, more expensive and has 2/3rds of the vram. That simply isn't competitive really.


Cut the price down to around 430 and it will be a great card.
Click to expand...

If you seriously think the Fury X should be the same price as a mid-premium range 980, you might want to check the benchmarks again.

It also has an AIO stock, meaning its incredibly cool and quiet (apart form the broken coil whine). Although I agree it should be reduced. Even just from £510 to £470, bring the Fury down to £400 and the 390X and 390 can stay at at £320 and £260 ish due to the fact that there is little performance difference between the 390 and 390X.

£470 is enough below the cheapest 980Ti to make up for the performance, given the AIO, £400 is at 980 price yet the fury beats it in performance, and they don't have to reduce the 390X and 390, which I feel is the reason for the high price of the other 2.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
Certainly for the same price as a furyx you can get a decent aftermarket card that will do near on if not over 1500
Click to expand...

This is why I went for a Zotac 980 Ti today.

Another 20-30% extra performance over the Fury for an extra £60 was a no-brainer really.

I'll probably miss multi-res Eyefinity in certain games, but I could always switch to a Fury X when AMD drops the price under £500 and voltage control is available to close the gap on the overclocked 980 Ti.
 
humbug said:
My maths is a bit out yes, its 5 percentage points to each core. the HT thread isn't used for DrawCalls, which is why in a lot of games the performance i5 vs i7 is the same, but in games that use a lot of threads for Physics it can make a difference.

For example... this is scaling by threads.

Why? Bullet Physics.



Click to expand...

One game a rule does not make.

I'll leave you to the speculation and judge things on how they are, as and when DX12 games come out.
 
Martini1991 said:
One game a rule does not make.

I'll leave you to the speculation and judge things on how they are, as and when DX12 games come out.
Click to expand...

"One game a rule does not make" i agree but DX12 is no peculation if Mantle is anything to go by.
 
By the time DX12 is mainstream 4GB will be a real problem for Fury X and you'll be able to pick up £300 GPU's with the same performance. Anyone buying a GPU now should buy with DX11 in mind.
 
thebennyboy said:
Intel and Nvidia would sooner start shoveling money over to AMD than face a anti-competitive lawsuit.
Click to expand...

AMD going bust is not anti-competitive.

Intel's dodgy deal in the past were anti-competitive, and that was settled (AMD really should have pushed harder).

making superior products with less defects and in stock is not anti-competitive. You are right that they may prefer AMD to straggle on, but they wont shift a dime to them. More likely they will just hold back and slow down the products just enough to let AMD keep a distant second place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom