• 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.

Fury (non-X) concern...

Orangey said:
TX did not have voltage at launch.

Along with every other bloody card.

Why do people have convenient amnesia when it comes to AMD. I even saw people using the sticker facing the bottom of the case as a talking point against Fury. Next they'll be complaining about HDDs not meeting their advertised capacity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is it everything you was hoping for then?

Is it meeting your expectations?

There was only one thing that would stop me ordering this card today, I'm pretty sure I posted about this yesterday and that was if the 1080p/1440p performance was not up to scratch compared to the competition and while it is close most of the time it is consistently slower and sometimes not far off a 980.

So after all the outlandish claims and prophetic statements regarding the card what did we get?
 
Freddie1980 said:
Comparing Fury the Bulldozer is silly. Bulldozer was crap from the get go and was slower then its previous top end part, Fury X is anyway between +5 to -15 of then 980 Ti and there's a chance software might close the gap a bit more and a much better card then the 290x in everyway.
Click to expand...

Ok dude, calm down and remember to breeeeeeeeathe ;) :D

Was horsing around :p
 
Freddie1980 said:
Comparing Fury the Bulldozer is silly. Bulldozer was crap from the get go and was slower then its previous top end part, Fury X is anyway between +5 to -15 of then 980 Ti and there's a chance software might close the gap a bit more and a much better card then the 290x in everyway.
Click to expand...

I imagine it will do a lot better once drivers mature and it's been out in the wild for a few months but reading statements by people like Ryan Shrout at PCper who's saying he was told first hand by AMD that drivers would need fine tuning on a game to game basis is not a good sign. I find that requirement worrying.
 
nashathedog said:
I imagine it will do a lot better once drivers mature and it's been out in the wild for a few months but reading statements by people like Ryan Shrout at PCper who's saying he was told first hand by AMD that drivers would need fine tuning on a game to game basis is not a good sign. I find that requirement worrying.
Click to expand...

This is literally how it already worked. AMD and NV's drivers are a database of hand-optimized per-game tweaks.

I have to wonder if this is some sort of shill campaign by NV. It's like everyone forgot everything they knew about GPUs and became noobs again.
 
Orangey said:
TX did not have voltage at launch.

Along with every other bloody card.

Why do people have convenient amnesia when it comes to AMD. I even saw people using the sticker facing the bottom of the case as a talking point against Fury. Next they'll be complaining about HDDs not meeting their advertised capacity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

+1

No extra volts on the TXs launch day.

With the Fury X people seem to be seeing only what they want to unfortunately.

If you look at just the number of cores the card comes with compared to a 290X and based the performance on that we would be looking at the Fury X being 45% faster. In reality AMD would have also increased the performance of the cores as well meaning an even bigger gain, in practice the performance is not there yet pointing to a short term driver problem.

I think when NVidia launch small Pascal (with HBM) they will also be looking at poor performance to start with and the cards will be struggling to get near the big Maxwell cards.
 
nashathedog said:
I imagine it will do a lot better once drivers mature and it's been out in the wild for a few months but reading statements by people like Ryan Shrout at PCper who's saying he was told first hand by AMD that drivers would need fine tuning on a game to game basis is not a good sign. I find that requirement worrying.
Click to expand...

This is a normal occurrence in the GPU world and has been for years. AAA Titles will literally have driver monkeys working overtime to get every last ounce of performance out of them. Or the vendors look at the games of choice on review sites and optimise for them.
 
nashathedog said:
Is it everything you was hoping for then?

Is it meeting your expectations?

There was only one thing that would stop me ordering this card today, I'm pretty sure I posted about this yesterday and that was if the 1080p/1440p performance was not up to scratch compared to the competition and while it is close most of the time it is consistently slower and sometimes not far off a 980.

So after all the outlandish claims and prophetic statements regarding the card what did we get?
Click to expand...

You more or less hit the nail on the head unintentionally with this post. We all have different expectations on what Fury X was going to achieve.

For example 1080p/1440p performance doesn't even factor in for me, while 4K does. In this regard the fact it only trades blows stock 980Ti at 4K with 2GB less VRAM sold me on the 980Ti.

Others care more about noise levels etc.
 
Can't help thinking AMD have made the same mistake with Fury as they did with Bulldozer.

With Bulldozer the future was a weak IPC but high core count, with Fury it's HBM and 4K becoming the new standard gamer resolution.

Trouble is, no one told the content makers to work to AMD's schedule.

Just like Bulldozer, Fury has arrived too early and it's going to cost them.
 
I'm waiting for some in game benchmarks from real users and going to give it eight weeks to let the dust clear and let it's strong points and weaknesses come to the forefront.

The 980ti g1 etc will still be around if all's not what I'm looking for.
 
Scougar said:
I haven't seen it... what's the spec difference between, fury x, non x and nano ?
Click to expand...

They haven't confirmed, there's rumours the nonX is a salvaged part with less cores, but because they didn't mention it in the presentation some people are assuming it is a full chip with just a lower clock speed

Same for the nano, all we know is that it uses about 175w instead of 275
 
Legend said:
I really am baffled by the fact the Fury X can't be overclocked... they said it was built for that purpose, and if it wasn't (or can't handle it safely) then how could they have made such a monumental screw up with their PR department?!
Click to expand...

I bought cards and none as far been able to OC with voltage until software supported that. Nothing new here.
 
andybird123 said:
They haven't confirmed, there's rumours the nonX is a salvaged part with less cores, but because they didn't mention it in the presentation some people are assuming it is a full chip with just a lower clock speed

Same for the nano, all we know is that it uses about 175w instead of 275
Click to expand...

Thanks :)
 
Kaapstad said:
+1

No extra volts on the TXs launch day.

With the Fury X people seem to be seeing only what they want to unfortunately.

If you look at just the number of cores the card comes with compared to a 290X and based the performance on that we would be looking at the Fury X being 45% faster. In reality AMD would have also increased the performance of the cores as well meaning an even bigger gain, in practice the performance is not there yet pointing to a short term driver problem.

I think when NVidia launch small Pascal (with HBM) they will also be looking at poor performance to start with and the cards will be struggling to get near the big Maxwell cards.
Click to expand...

But even without voltmodding the TX has much more headroom than 5-10%.

My 980s run at 1530/8000 without voltmods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom