Fury X aging tremendously bad in 2017

Nexus18 · 13 Nov 2017 at 13:52

So what gives AMD?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7ckjj5/furyx_aging_tremendously_bad_in_2017/

- purposely gimping cards to get people to upgrade to vega
- fury x just that bad
- or all the time/resources going into vega

Kepler tanked badly but this is even worse.....

Personally I've found drivers to be **** for the last year or so, ever since relive dropped, certainly feels to me that vega has been getting all the attention.....

Certainly makes me question what vega will be like when navi drops/in 1-2 years compared to the 10xx

five8five · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:06

People have mentioned about this in other threads. Personally, I think it's due to the Vega issues, all hands to the pump.

JediFragger · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:22

Yup, it's pretty bad to have abandoned existing AMD users like that. Shame, the Fury I had for a short time was pretty damn good.

Gregster · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:26

Surprised to read this in truth. AMD have always been good with older cards but I guess all resources are being used on Vega.

Martini1991 · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:31

Soiledwine.

Kaapstad · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:42

Lets not dress it up.

4gb of VRAM is what is killing these cards.

Having said that if people turn the settings down a bit the Fury X is still a good card.

Martini1991 · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:45

Kaapstad said:
Lets not dress it up.

4gb of VRAM is what is killing these cards.

Having said that if people turn the settings down a bit the Fury X is still a good card.

When people mentioned 4GB VRAM back hen fury launched. People were banging on about magic.

shankly1985 · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:50

Kaapstad said:
Lets not dress it up.

4gb of VRAM is what is killing these cards.

Having said that if people turn the settings down a bit the Fury X is still a good card.

This... I seen this first hand with my 4Gb R9290
4Gb isn't enough vram even at 1080p in loads of games.

Countless titles now need more than 4Gb vram for textures alone, that is before you start adding in ultra shadows and AA

Amd GPUs with more than 4Gb vram are still doing very well.

GoogalyMoogaly · 13 Nov 2017 at 14:57

shankly1985 said:
This... I seen this first hand with my 4Gb R9290
4Gb isn't enough vram even at 1080p in loads of games.

Countless titles now need more than 4Gb vram for textures alone, that is before you start adding in ultra shadows and AA

Amd GPUs with more than 4Gb vram are still doing very well.

But it's HBM, remember. HBM is magic and it's almost impossible to run oput of VRAM with HBM. I remember being told this back when the Fury X launched. It didn't need 6GB like the 980Ti because of the magic unfillable HBM. If you look back on these forums I'm sure you'll find people saying as much.

shankly1985 · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:00

GoogalyMoogaly said:
But it's HBM, remember. HBM is magic and it's almost impossible to run oput of VRAM with HBM. I remember being told this back when the Fury X launched. It didn't need 6GB like the 980Ti because of the magic unfillable HBM. If you look back on these forums I'm sure you'll find people saying as much.

I think you will I do remember it. Don't believe I did though? And if I did I was very wrong.

GoogalyMoogaly · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:07

shankly1985 said:
I think you will I do remember it. Don't believe I did though? And if I did I was very wrong.

I'm not saying it was you, it's just the same thing we hear every AMD release. Excuses.

I also seem to recall being told that because AMD was in both consoles that games would now be optimised for AMD. And yet I still see people saying now that games are optimised for Nvidia which is why they don't run as well on AMD.

shankly1985 · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:14

GoogalyMoogaly said:
I'm not saying it was you, it's just the same thing we hear every AMD release. Excuses.

I also seem to recall being told that because AMD was in both consoles that games would now be optimised for AMD. And yet I still see people saying now that games are optimised for Nvidia which is why they don't run as well on AMD.

And that will happen I firmly do believe that.. Until DirectX 12 and Vulkan become used we will not see better optimised for AMD hardware.

Reason is DirectX 11

Just look at recent titles gives you a very good idea Forza 7 true Dx12 title who had day one performance out the door? First true Vulkan title who had day one performance out the door?

old gamer · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:22

Kaapstad said:
Lets not dress it up.

4gb of VRAM is what is killing these cards.

Having said that if people turn the settings down a bit the Fury X is still a good card.

Thinking the same, would be intresting to see how the 8gb 290's stand up with the latest games

humbug · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:22

Its a 4GB card, that was never a good idea.

D.P. · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:32

Gregster said:
Surprised to read this in truth. AMD have always been good with older cards but I guess all resources are being used on Vega.

AMD get credit where there is liekly no credit due. When you release the same architecture with a different name like 290->390 then f course drivers for the older cards keep up. Fury is unique enough that it isn't surprising that Vega and Polaris drivers aren't helping Fiji.

The 4Gb Vram is liekly the main issue on top of drivers. Remember all the fans that tried to claim that 4Gb of GM was going to age like 8Gb of GDDR, well, we can sit back and laugh at them now!

spoffle · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:36

It's the 4GB of VRAM. It's why I didn't touch a Fury with a bargepole. The reason AMD had the reputation of having long lasting cards was because they would typically put more VRAM on their cards than competing nVidia cards, and have greater memory bandwidth.

The Fury cards had the bandwidth, but not the quantity. I saw this coming a mile off, so I got a 980Ti instead, and recently a Titan X Pascal.

spoffle · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:37

D.P. said:
AMD get credit where there is liekly no credit due. When you release the same architecture with a different name like 290->390 then f course drivers for the older cards keep up. Fury is unique enough that it isn't surprising that Vega and Polaris drivers aren't helping Fiji.

The 4Gb Vram is liekly the main issue on top of drivers. Remember all the fans that tried to claim that 4Gb of GM was going to age like 8Gb of GDDR, well, we can sit back and laugh at them now!

No, that's not why. It's because of what I said in my last post. AMD cards typically had more VRAM and memory bandwidth than equivalent nVidia cards, which kept them relevant for longer.

I don't think it's much to do with drivers, than it is hardware limitations.

five8five · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:47

spoffle said:
No, that's not why. It's because of what I said in my last post. AMD cards typically had more VRAM and memory bandwidth than equivalent nVidia cards, which kept them relevant for longer.

I don't think it's much to do with drivers, than it is hardware limitations.

Isn't it both though, using the drivers to manage the amount of ram. I'm sure I remember reading that AMD had to specifically optimise the Fury drivers to cater for the 4GB.

Hence, not having the time / resources to do it.

r22snapper · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:47

GoogalyMoogaly said:
But it's HBM, remember. HBM is magic and it's almost impossible to run oput of VRAM with HBM. I remember being told this back when the Fury X launched. It didn't need 6GB like the 980Ti because of the magic unfillable HBM. If you look back on these forums I'm sure you'll find people saying as much.

People posting cobblers on a forum? Surely not!

Nexus18 · 13 Nov 2017 at 15:50

4GB will have an impact but there is more to it than just that.......