• 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 X Vs Titan X - Performance compared

chroniclard said:
Lets be fair, it mostly loses.

Personally I was hoping it would beat a Ti. Remains to be seen if it will ever even match one. However if they sort the pump issues I will still be getting one......:confused::p
Click to expand...

It was very evident from the spec sheet, rumors, AMD's comment on power efficiency, the architecture, Hawaii performance etc that beating a Ti soundly simply was not on the cards.

Fiji adds HBM memory and a load more pixel shaders above Hawaii and uses the Tonga efficiency improvements but most of the rest of the architecture is unchanged. Some optimistic AMD fans came out with wild performance estimates based on adding together improvements while completely ignoring any bottle necks, diminishing returns, etc. Having a load more pixel shaders doesn't help you if you can't efficiently feed them because the architecture only has 4 shader engines, and it doesn't help you if you are limited by geometry or tessellation performance.
 
chroniclard said:
Lets be fair, it mostly loses.

Personally I was hoping it would beat a Ti. Remains to be seen if it will ever even match one. However if they sort the pump issues I will still be getting one......:confused::p
Click to expand...

Not at 4k it doesn't. It's amazed me just how many people don't seem to understand that Fury X is a 4k GPU.
 
ALXAndy said:
Not at 4k it doesn't. It's amazed me just how many people don't seem to understand that Fury X is a 4k GPU.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty poor argument though, 4K gaming is a tiny minority and it only wins in a handful of titles. Maybe if the drivers mature a bit it might catch up. Thats not even considering the 3rd party Ti's which muller it. :)

Crossfire X performance aat 4K looks very very good though, quite tempted by that. :p
 
RavenXXX2 said:
So is the ti. It's close at 4k but once you factor in ti OC and more vram it's the best GPU for all resolutions.
Click to expand...

And you also need to factor in that the TI is running on very mature drivers. They've been around since the 970 launched. The Fury is not, and AMD are pants at making drivers.

When the 7970 launched it was the fastest single GPU. 680 came out and LOLed at it, AMD sorted out the drivers, fastest card again.

You also can't overclock a Fury with any meaningful sort of clock yet either. I'm sure this will be addressed also.

Mind you none of that matters. It's all about price for me. If Fury (non X) is as good as I think it will be (IE between the 980 and 980ti) and costs £400 or less it will be hard for me not to order two.

Though I won't, because I'm not spending any more than £600 on two, so I will just wait it out. Won't be long before AMD launch the dual GPU one and it drops like a stone to £500 or so just like the 295x2.

Then I'll bite.

chroniclard said:
Thats a pretty poor argument though, 4K gaming is a tiny minority and it only wins in a handful of titles. Maybe if the drivers mature a bit it might catch up. Thats not even considering the 3rd party Ti's which muller it. :)

Crossfire X performance aat 4K looks very very good though, quite tempted by that. :p
Click to expand...

4k is where it's at now. It's a new resolution and people want to see it. Any high end card now will be designed solely for 4k. Anything else is covered by cheaper, slower cards. IE the Fury non X, Fury Pro, Fury XT, 390x and so on.

You're right, it's a tiny minority. It's also a tiny minority with "endless bank accounts" who buy all of these new stupidly priced cards. The world don't work like that, kiddo. What AMD need now is a true replacement for the 7950. You know? the one people actually buy.
 
Last edited:
ALXAndy said:
4k is where it's at now. It's a new resolution and people want to see it. Any high end card now will be designed solely for 4k. Anything else is covered by cheaper, slower cards. IE the Fury non X, Fury Pro, Fury XT, 390x and so on.

You're right, it's a tiny minority. It's also a tiny minority with "endless bank accounts" who buy all of these new stupidly priced cards. The world don't work like that, kiddo. What AMD need now is a true replacement for the 7950. You know? the one people actually buy.
Click to expand...

Except the hordes of people that are buying the more expensive Ti because its better at 4k.
 
ALXAndy said:
And you also need to factor in that the TI is running on very mature drivers. They've been around since the 970 launched. The Fury is not, and AMD are pants at making drivers.
Click to expand...

Fury has basically the same architecture as Tonga which has been out how long? even if drivers do improve and it manages to get to 980Ti levels the 4GB of local memory will be a much bigger issue by then.
 
fs123 said:
I guess no one wants to think out of the box and compare architectural performance at identical clocks (it must be hard work moving the clockspeed slider a bit in MSI AB).

Review sites do standard comparisons because thats their job. Users could and should be doing tests which are out of the norm, that stand out.
That's what makes it interesting.

edit: There is no need to make a big deal out of my request/suggestion. It was just an idea.
Click to expand...

Why not go the whole hog and downclock the titan memory to 500mhz!
 
ALXAndy said:
And you also need to factor in that the TI is running on very mature drivers. They've been around since the 970 launched. The Fury is not, and AMD are pants at making drivers.
Click to expand...

The argument can be made that GCN 1.2 is hardly anything new to AMD either.
 
mmj_uk said:
Fury has basically the same architecture as Tonga which has been out how long? even if drivers do improve and it manages to get to 980Ti levels the 4GB of local memory will be a much bigger issue by then.
Click to expand...

The fury is also Very large compared to Tonga. So it is a bit of a different situation. Inefficiencies in drivers and not being able to feed all the cores with enough data are what is holding it back at lower than 4k.

If you look at Gregs Thief video, where the FX is running on mantle. it beats the Titan x by a few fps at stock. Considering that Gregs TX is clocking itself to 1.3ghz. Although things could also go the other way if the TX is not being held back by API overhead.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom