• 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.

Poll: Fury X Owners. Would you buy the Fury X again if you could do it all over again?

With hindsight, would you buy the Fury / Fury X again?

  • Yes, I would.

    Votes: 31 36.0%

  • No, I wouldn't.

    Votes: 55 64.0%
  • Total voters
    86
AlamoX said:
to me AMD made few mistake during Fury's launch, launching fury X before fury with drivers not ready, when basicaly both cards performed the same.( launching fury before furyX would'v been better)
one other thing that bothers me after release, why is AMD acting so stupid, by forcing other manufacturers to use coolers too big for the PCB of the fury, or plainly not allowing costume FuryX or Nano, yes we got it AMD managed a small factor GPU, that doesnt mean you have to force ppl to buy a product with an average cooler (yes they are not bad, but they are not great either), this kind of behavior i would have expect it from a competitor but not from AMD, it's so out of character, i hope they change this.
Click to expand...
I agree with you for the most part. With the newer drivers one can see that AMD has surpassed the 980 Ti, at least at 4k consistently. Why didn't they launch those drivers when the Fury X came out. It would have been much better in terms of mind share and better sales.

Had the Fury X came out with the improved drivers and improved performance and cheaper by at least $50 then it would have been a hit.

One another thing that I didn't get is that why did they launch it with a closed loop cooler. It's nice but that should have been an option and that would have cut the price of the Fury X. nVidia has 980 Ti's with hybrid coolers similar to the Fury X but those are an option with select board partners.

Fury X would have been much more competitive $50 - $100 cheaper at launch. The regular Fury should have launched at $500 - $450 price range.
 
Ё
ICDP said:
Can I ask what resolution you game at? I only ask because your experience of 290X/Fury and now 980 relative performance is totally different to mine. I game at 4K and the 290X and 980 I owned come nowhere near the same performance as my Fury.

Neither the 290X or the 980 (even when overclocked) were playable at the same settings I can get ~40 FPS+ on my OC Fury at 4K.
Click to expand...

Шэму пще ф 1080з ыскуут фтв Ш кгт

,,,,,...

/ ВАКУЕ
ШРНГ


EDIT:
That was odd?

I played an hour of Star Trek and afterwards my PC's writing Russian??

That's never happened before, luckily a reboot fixed it.

As for the question my panel is 1080p but I run games at 1440 via vsr..
 
Last edited:
FuryXGuy said:
Not true. On average it's beating the 980 Ti:

http://techavenue.wix.com/techavenue#!xfx-fury-x-review-final/c6bd
Click to expand...

Sorry but my Fury X does not stand a chance against my GTX 980 Ti @stock or overclocked.

Having said that the Fury X is still a very good card for gaming. Mine are totally silent and with custom waterblocks they don't go above 35c.

Another thing to remember about the GTX 980 Ti is the price of some of them. If you consider bang for buck the Fury X does become a lot more competitive.
 
Kaapstad said:
Sorry but my Fury X does not stand a chance against my GTX 980 Ti @stock or overclocked.

Having said that the Fury X is still a very good card for gaming. Mine are totally silent and with custom waterblocks they don't go above 35c.

Another thing to remember about the GTX 980 Ti is the price of some of them. If you consider bang for buck the Fury X does become a lot more competitive.
Click to expand...

Same applies to Nano if you plan to put it a waterblock on it. Nothing beats the price/performance ratio of it.. With custom waterblock costs around £460 for everything atm.
 
Kaapstad said:
Sorry but my Fury X does not stand a chance against my GTX 980 Ti @stock or overclocked.

Having said that the Fury X is still a very good card for gaming. Mine are totally silent and with custom waterblocks they don't go above 35c.

Another thing to remember about the GTX 980 Ti is the price of some of them. If you consider bang for buck the Fury X does become a lot more competitive.
Click to expand...

I was talking about stock 980 Ti. With newer drivers it's actually matching the 980 Ti at stock and even beating at 4k on average. According to this. Never did a say an OC'ed 980 Ti. That's the reason I brought a Fury X over the 980 Ti as I got mines at a deal where it cost $50 - $60 less than a stock 980 Ti. It was a no brainer to get the the Fury X over the 980 Ti at that price. Although, the Fury X can be overclocked. I read that if you can reach 1200/600 than the performance boost can be significant even greater than an OC'ed 980 Ti. Problem is I haven't gotten too many confirmation about people reaching that level.

It would be an interesting to try for an experiment to see if Fury X owners could hit the 1200/600 mark.

I don't regret it. I just wished that the performance improvements and the cost should have been cheaper that the 980 Ti to begin with. Also, as much as I like the the custom loop cooler it added extra cost to the Fury X. I think that should have been an "option".

AMD should have done these things at launch with the Fury X $60 - $70 cheaper than the 980 Ti. It would have gotten a hell a lot of attention and sales.
 
I just went through 15 pages looking for the Fury pro owners thread and must have missed it so I'll stick this here.

I just thought I'd have a go at overclocking my Fury Tri-x with voltage and running Firestrike Extreme to see the result and here it is compared to a stock clock result from September.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/7244899/fs/5995952#

Is that sad or what.

I have an overclocked Sapphire Tri-x that comes out of the box with a 1040 clock.

I gave it max volts and tried an 1130 mhz clock today.
 
nashathedog said:
I just went through 15 pages looking for the Fury pro owners thread and must have missed it so I'll stick this here.

I just thought I'd have a go at overclocking my Fury Tri-x with voltage and running Firestrike Extreme to see the result and here it is compared to a stock clock result from September.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/7244899/fs/5995952#

Is that sad or what.

I have an overclocked Sapphire Tri-x that comes out of the box with a 1040 clock.

I gave it max volts and tried an 1130 mhz clock today.
Click to expand...

Fury Pro owners thread is here

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=28297188#post28297188

It is easy to find, there are links to it at the front of every thread I update.:)
 
nashathedog said:
I just went through 15 pages looking for the Fury pro owners thread and must have missed it so I'll stick this here.

I just thought I'd have a go at overclocking my Fury Tri-x with voltage and running Firestrike Extreme to see the result and here it is compared to a stock clock result from September.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/7244899/fs/5995952#

Is that sad or what.

I have an overclocked Sapphire Tri-x that comes out of the box with a 1040 clock.

I gave it max volts and tried an 1130 mhz clock today.
Click to expand...

Fiji is a poor overclocker in general. Out of the three I have tested I got the following max stable overclocks.

Fury Tri X 1130
Fury Nitro 1170
Fury X 1165

All in all around 10% - 13% at best. Now in comparison to a 980Ti that sounds horrible as the 980Ti cards I tested were getting ~17-20% overclock from max overboost at stock from ~1300 to ~1540.

If you are gaming at below 4K the Fiji cards are not comparable. But at 4K I find them very close to 980Ti speeds give or take ~10%
 
ICDP said:
Fiji is a poor overclocker in general. Out of the three I have tested I got the following max stable overclocks.

Fury Tri X 1130
Fury Nitro 1170
Fury X 1165

All in all around 10% - 13% at best. Now in comparison to a 980Ti that sounds horrible as the 980Ti cards I tested were getting ~17-20% overclock from max overboost at stock from ~1300 to ~1540.

If you are gaming at below 4K the Fiji cards are not comparable. But at 4K I find them very close to 980Ti speeds give or take ~10%
Click to expand...

That has somewhat changed. With the newer drivers at 1440P it matches the stock 980 Ti on average.

9908c0_81b8a4ecf4c546eaa427e1ea41289296.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom