fury and 4gb limiting?

james.miller · 17 Aug 2016 at 11:02

nashathedog said:
I didn't know you was talking ultrawide, I'm running 16:9 2560x1440 on a 1920x1080 monitor, I thought ultrawide only came at 2560x1080 or 3440x1440, Plus I didn't think dsr was available for ultrawide.

sure is

shaf · 17 Aug 2016 at 11:29

Ordered the Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme.

tommybhoy · 17 Aug 2016 at 12:05

Great choice.

AMDMatt said:
Doom's a bad example, i can run it at nightmare settings at 4K without an issue on the Pro Duo, you just need to put a command in the launcher shortcut to unlock the settings. Works on Vulkan like a peach at 4K with highest possible settings and of course at 1080P too.

I know, but, the majority of your customers don't know that, besides, your not going to find a launcher command when Nv overload 4Gb via upcoming Game Works titles especially as they've already started doing it already.

Great work btw, your team has worked very tight with ID on getting a commanding improvement over like for like with Nvidia on Vulkan more than likely down to real proper hardware Async. :cool:

prjwebb · 17 Aug 2016 at 12:25

nashathedog said:
I didn't know you was talking ultrawide, I'm running 16:9 2560x1440 on a 1920x1080 monitor, I thought ultrawide only came at 2560x1080 or 3440x1440, Plus I didn't think dsr was available for ultrawide.

Nah I don't have ultra wide but the only extra resolutions I'm getting are an ultra wide 1920x1200

~>Dg<~ · 17 Aug 2016 at 12:43

i personally dont see why you would buy 4gb at this point in time

especially when there are cards for the same price which literally same performance with more vram.

Ash0787 · 17 Aug 2016 at 12:55

Its hard to make it run out of memory in normal games even if you downscale 4K.

I did find an interesting situation though where cards without 6 or 8 GB struggle / are unusable, theres a virtual reality program called 'Virtual Desktop' which allows you to use a HMD as monitor replacement, its similar to using a projector but lower resolution / better colours / more convenient

3GB cards cannot function properly with this in certain games, 4GB would have a bit more headroom but it still might not work in some cases, this is because the VR 'shell' uses about 1.5GB VRAM by itself

I havent been able to test with the Fury X though because I dont want to install windows 10 on both machines, partly because I have a RAID setup for storage on the win 7

Relentless81 · 17 Aug 2016 at 12:56

~>Dg<~ said:
i personally dont see why you would buy 4gb at this point in time

especially when there are cards for the same price which literally same performance with more vram.

Which card has more vram than a fury for £300 that is more powerful out of interest?

Dave2150 · 17 Aug 2016 at 14:13

Relentless81 said:
Which card has more vram than a fury for £300 that is more powerful out of interest?

1070 with 8GB VRAM and much higher performance for £360
980ti with 6GB VRAM and much higher performance for £350
980ti second hand for £250-300 with warranty remaining

Or a 390X with 8GB VRAM for £160-£200, 10-15% less performance than a Fury but a good £100 cheaper.

prjwebb · 17 Aug 2016 at 14:48

Playing overwatch at 1080p on max settings I'm using 1-1.5gb vram.
I know it's not a high demand game but 4gb doesn't worry me.

Dave2150 · 17 Aug 2016 at 14:57

prjwebb said:
Playing overwatch at 1080p on max settings I'm using 1-1.5gb vram.
I know it's not a high demand game but 4gb doesn't worry me.

Overwatch runs on a frigging potato. Next you'll be boasting running Doom3 successfully on your Fury.

prjwebb · 17 Aug 2016 at 15:05

Relentless81 · 17 Aug 2016 at 15:45

Dave2150 said:
1070 with 8GB VRAM and much higher performance for £360
980ti with 6GB VRAM and much higher performance for £350
980ti second hand for £250-300 with warranty remaining

Or a 390X with 8GB VRAM for £160-£200, 10-15% less performance than a Fury but a good £100 cheaper.

1070 is £60 more expensive

980ti is £50 more expensive

Second hand is second hand

A 390X isnt as powerful as a Fury

I'll ask again, which card has more vram than a fury for £300 that is more powerful out of interest?

LoadsaMoney · 17 Aug 2016 at 15:55

Dave2150 said:
Or a 390X with 8GB VRAM for £160-£200, 10-15% less performance than a Fury but a good £100 cheaper.

It may have slightly less performance, but its AMDs top card

Dave2150 · 17 Aug 2016 at 16:42

LoadsaMoney said:
It may have slightly less performance, but its AMDs top card

Yep.

390/390X are dirt cheap, if you need more performance than that then get a 980ti or 1070. Literally burning money buying a 4GB Fury, completely worthless going forward with it's VRAM limitations.

bru · 17 Aug 2016 at 16:48

Relentless81 said:
I'll ask again, which card has more vram than a fury for £300 that is more powerful out of interest?

On this very site for £289.99.

Oh and just in case you want to mention overclocking.

Maximum overclock of our sample is 1110 MHz on the GPU, a 7% overclock. GPU overclocking potential is quite slim. AMD hinted at much higher overclocking potential in their briefings, so I'm a bit disappointed. OC potential of the Fury non-X is also quite a bit lower than with the Fury X reference design we reviewed.

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 4.5%.

Source

Whereas for the 1060 gaming.

Maximum overclock of our sample is 2435 MHz on the memory (22% overclock) and +165 MHz to the GPU's base clock, which increases maximum Boost from 1974 MHz to 2139 MHz (8% overclock).

Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 15.1%.

Source

Dave2150 · 17 Aug 2016 at 17:03

bru said:
On this very site for £289.99.

Oh and just in case you want to mention overclocking.

Source

Whereas for the 1060 gaming.

Ah good point, I forgot that the 1060 also trashes the Fury in almost all games, while having 6GB VRAM.

Relentless81 · 17 Aug 2016 at 19:32

If that is true then I should have waited longer for the 1060 to be released

Dave you seem really bitter about the Fury for some reason, you seeem to take any opportunity to slate them on the forum, whilst I'm sure you have your reasons it doesn't trash it at all going off the info posted, however if its faster and has more RAM then fair enough the Fury isnt the best choice for £300 the 1060 is

Unless you have a Freesync monitor of course

bru · 17 Aug 2016 at 19:38

To be fair the Fury does much better at higher resolutions, but then of course you might run into memory limitations, which is kinda what this entire thread is about.

If buying now I don't see any of the 28nm cards as a good idea, not when you can get fast 14/16nm cards for lots of different segments starting from £100.

tommybhoy · 18 Aug 2016 at 00:03

Relentless81 said:
Dave you seem really bitter about the Fury for some reason, you seeem to take any opportunity to slate them on the forum, whilst I'm sure you have your reasons it doesn't trash it at all going off the info posted, however if its faster and has more RAM then fair enough the Fury isnt the best choice for £300 the 1060 is

I think you are mistaking Dave as bitter instead of simply being blunt.

Dave is as every bit blunt/bitter to both teams, imo, he doesn't care the vendor, he just tells it straight as he sees it.

Relentless81 · 18 Aug 2016 at 07:13

Whatever floats peoples boats I suppose but to say it trashes it is a complete over reaction and misinformation

I game at 1440p with my Fury and have no issues with vram, I'm sure the fury pulls away from the 1060 at 1440p too however this thread was about 1080p so the 1060 appears to be the better choice for the op