• 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

Scougar said:
Not trying to stir the pot here, just curious. Was the AF texture distance issue resolved on the Titan X as well? Was that the 'prefer max quality' setting? Did it impact performance?
Click to expand...

It was an issue that only greg suffered form, potentially a drive bug, game bug or user error. Numerous nvidia owners posted screen shots proving there was no issue.
 
ALXAndy said:
To be honest I like Greg. He's very eccentric. When he does reviews he always does them from a different slant.

However, being fair to the Fury X it is a 4k card. If you read through reviews, it's a 4k card. Nowhere did it do well at 1080p so I think in all honesty (apart from the fun Greg had doing this) it was a complete waste of time.

It's kinda mad to want to use this card for anything at 1080p. I do like reading Greg's findings though but this one seems a little bit in favour of Nvidia (which is something else he does...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the FuryX clearly comes in its element at 4K,where the HBM really starts to make itself known. It is a really good option for 4K users wanting quiet AIO card (once pump issue is resolved which i expect it is) and gives great competition to Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
I have found out the problem :D

The secondary monitor shows up as "Generic PnP" but looking through the NCP, I couldn't see a way to change it at all but using the default windows settings, I have it set to use the Asus ROG Swift monitors colour settings instead of the Generic settings. Both now look the same.

So fingers crossed it will all be good from here on out with comparisons.
Click to expand...

Sadly this got buried under screams of conspiracy theory.
 
D.P. said:
Yeah, the FuryX clearly comes in its element at 4K,where the HBM really starts to make itself known. It is a really good option for 4K users wanting quiet AIO card (once pump issue is resolved which i expect it is) and gives great competition to Nvidia. Shame people simply can't accept the facts and go hunting for evidence that isn't there to make their favorite brand look better.
Click to expand...

I will be going with either two of these or two other Fury models (either the non X or the Pro).

I don't want to spend more than £300 per card, but, if the Fury comes in at around £400 it won't be long before Nvidia slash prices on the now venerable 970 and 980 and the price of the Fury tumbles also.

But I run 4k, and tbh? I wouldn't even consider this card at any lower. It wasn't designed, built, or had drivers made for it to run any lower. The resolution is why the HBM is on there, etc.

I looked at a review the other day and the Fury X is 2% slower overall than the 980ti at 4k. That's why Fury X has one quite a few awards and generally went down well (unless you were daft and thought it would trounce the Titan X and thus disappointed and whiny about it...).
 
ALXAndy said:
I will be going with either two of these or two other Fury models (either the non X or the Pro).

I don't want to spend more than £300 per card, but, if the Fury comes in at around £400 it won't be long before Nvidia slash prices on the now venerable 970 and 980 and the price of the Fury tumbles also.

But I run 4k, and tbh? I wouldn't even consider this card at any lower. It wasn't designed, built, or had drivers made for it to run any lower. The resolution is why the HBM is on there, etc.

I looked at a review the other day and the Fury X is 2% slower overall than the 980ti at 4k. That's why Fury X has one quite a few awards and generally went down well (unless you were daft and thought it would trounce the Titan X and thus disappointed and whiny about it...).
Click to expand...


It is funny that a lot of the AMD perspective buyers were disappointed with the performance and reviews yet i think it actually does plenty good enough at the 4K to force some good competition between Nvidia and AMD.

The furyX is a pixel shading monster and that really helps it to gain ground when the resolution increase because other bottlenecks become less important such is tessellation and geometry. The design just has some efficiency flaws at 1o80P, partly driver perhaps but likely the pixel shaders simply don't get worked enough and the HBM bandwidth is not really needed.
 
Well I am glad I got to the bottom of it and will redo the vids as they are not up to a standard that is good. I am glad people mentioned the colours and I wasn't happy with them either and it looks all wrong, so I was quite happy for that to be brought up. Not sure on the conspiracy side but did make me chuckle :D

Andy - You are quite correct and I have said it several times that this card gets better when the res gets higher and even with games like SoM where I was certain that VRAM would be an issue at 1440P or 200% scaling, it has chewed through it and at very good frame rates. I would love to do some higher res recordings but the capture card I want is over £400 and I don't think the Mrs would be too happy with me spending that much :D

Anyways, I am now redoing the vids, so for those that are interested, keep an eye out. And thanks to all for the kind words. I am learning as I go and something new for me, so I don't beat myself up when I do make mistakes (you lot do it for me :p) but all settings are correct and have been since I did the first BF4 vid and now all the colours are correct, so everything should be tickity boo from here on out :cool:

(hope I haven't just jinxed myself :D)
 
Since you are redoing the vids, why not use the dynamic scaling feature from both cards and run at 4K to see the performance difference.

To compare architecture performance, you could also do a test where both cards run at 1100MHZ for example.
 
fs123 said:
you could also do a test where both cards run at 1100MHZ for example.
Click to expand...

That would mean downclocking the TX to do that though as they boost closer to 1200mhz.

Cant see how that would be of any use TBH other than to say "lets see how this card does against this other one that we have made slower"
 
oldestgregg said:
That would mean downclocking the TX to do that though as they boost closer to 1200mhz.

Cant see how that would be of any use TBH other than to say "lets see how this card does against this other one that we have made slower"
Click to expand...

If you read what I wrote, Architecture performance. Apples to apples test. That would give a true idea of how each architecture performs and how much overclocking would be needed for FuryX to match a TitanX, if and when voltage is unlocked.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia cutting corners on image quality explains why the minimum framerates are so much lower on AMD cards. It's no different than the DX10.1 debacle.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/358290-now-i-know-why-nvidia-gets-better-framerates/page__st__20__pid__7167894#entry7167894 said:
ATI cards have always been more vibrant and color accurate than nVidia cards. that was a conscious decision on nVidia's part to chase performance. it stems from ATI's early work for CAD systems and the patents they hold due to that. Its also the reason why ATI has always supported more monitors than nVidia.
Click to expand...

Is there any truth to this?

Image quality is all that matters in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom