Fury X Vs Titan X - Performance compared

Mauller · 9 Jul 2015 at 01:07

ooof. just installed them myself.

14.12 omega drivers had me at 440,161 ST
15.6 had me at 485,280 ST +10% over 14.12
15.200.1040 leaked had me at 590,211 + 21% over 15.6

15.7 pushed me all the way up to 712,263 + 20% over 1040 leaked.

from 15.6 to 15.7 i gained + 46% in draw call performance.

MADNESS!!

On an FX8350 by the way.

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 03:10

Mauller said:
ooof. just installed them myself.

14.12 omega drivers had me at 440,161 ST
15.6 had me at 485,280 ST +10% over 14.12
15.200.1040 leaked had me at 590,211 + 21% over 15.6

15.7 pushed me all the way up to 712,263 + 20% over 1040 leaked.

from 15.6 to 15.7 i gained + 46% in draw call performance.

MADNESS!!

On an FX8350 by the way.

Do you have any benchmark scores from games? Draw call performance although interesting doesn't tell you much about real world performance in most games. The hacked 390 drivers running on a 290 game so e good gains in things like Tessellation so games like the Witcher 3 with hair works on gained a lot of ground.

Nexus18 · 9 Jul 2015 at 13:35

EDIT:

NVM

Gregster · 10 Jul 2015 at 20:17

My last one on stock clocks for now and I will be doing overclocks from Monday

Hope you enjoyed these and if anyone wants to see a game that I have, I would happily bench it.

X3T · 10 Jul 2015 at 20:37

Gregster said:
My last one on stock clocks for now and I will be doing overclocks from Monday

Hope you enjoyed these and if anyone wants to see a game that I have, I would happily bench it.

Great work on the vids. Do you have StarCraft 2, Eve Online or Deus Ex HR which you could bench on 1440p?

Gregster · 13 Jul 2015 at 17:46

X3T said:
Great work on the vids. Do you have StarCraft 2, Eve Online or Deus Ex HR which you could bench on 1440p?

I do have Deus Ex HR but not the other 2 sorry.

Anyways, here is my latest testing and it is maximum stable overclock results on the Titan X and Fury X at 1440P.

Everything as usual is 'Apples to Apples' with the same settings and quality set for both cards.

elmarko · 13 Jul 2015 at 17:57

Good review there, I've always wanted people to do "max stable overclock VS max stable overclock" reviews so a big thumbs up.

All review websites show overclocked performance against everything at stock, which is pretty pointless!.

fs123 · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:02

The TitanX temps are hitting 80C overclocked but FuryX only getting to 48C so should be much quieter overall. FuryX also seems to be faster clock for clock since it is usually 10-15% slower in most of the games with a 30% slower clock speed.

dessimpson · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:06

My Titan X with the EVGA AIO only goes to 48 when benchmarking. That said. It is another £100 to an already expensive card.

Gregster · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:09

fs123 said:
The TitanX temps are hitting 80C overclocked but FuryX only getting to 48C so should be much quieter overall. FuryX also seems to be faster clock for clock since it is usually 10-15% slower in most of the games with a 30% slower clock speed.

That is one of the big pluses for the Fury X. Temps and noise are great (so long as you don't get a whiney one) and the Titan X is quite noisy in comparison. I am not a fan of noise either but it isn't intrusive or overly loud but I would prefer a little quieter.

Like I said before, you can't compare clock for clock as it doesn't work that way.

D.P. · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:24

fs123 said:
The TitanX temps are hitting 80C overclocked but FuryX only getting to 48C so should be much quieter overall. FuryX also seems to be faster clock for clock since it is usually 10-15% slower in most of the games with a 30% slower clock speed.

The FuryX has a water coole, what do you expect?

Clock for clock speeds is utterly ridiculous thing to look at. That is like saying Nvidia must be faster because there are 6 letters in nvidia and only 3 in AMD.

bru · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:27

D.P. said:
That is like saying Nvidia must be faster because there are 6 letters in nvidia and only 3 in AMD.

Made me properly laugh that did.

fs123 · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:28

D.P. said:
The FuryX has a water coole, what do you expect?

Clock for clock speeds is utterly ridiculous thing to look at. That is like saying Nvidia must be faster because there are 6 letters in nvidia and only 3 in AMD.

Yet for some reason people a panning a lower clocked AMD card because it can't beat a higher clocked TitanX/980Ti.
FYI The Fury air cooled is even quieter than the water cooled FuryX...

Martini1991 · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:38

That was a good video that Greg tbh.

I personally can't get excited about Fury at all.

Dygaza · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:39

Have we actually had any reviews from Fury X's where they measured noise from card that didn't had whiny waterpump, or coil whine?

shankly1985 · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:40

One time amd used to get jumped all over for its loud fan speed and temperature.. Now that amd sorted that it's easy to just forget about it...

Funny how times change.

D.P. · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:43

fs123 said:
Yet for some reason people a panning a lower clocked AMD card because it can't beat a higher clocked TitanX/980Ti.
FYI The Fury air cooled is even quieter than the water cooled FuryX...

What part of "clock speeds are meaningless" don't you understand?

And where did I say anything about noise?

Martini1991 · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:45

D.P. said:
What part of "clock speeds are meaningless" don't you understand?

And where did I say anything about noise?

Wouldn't say clock speeds are meaningless.

But comparing clock for clock between two completely different cards with different clocks is hilarious.

Gregster · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:48

Martini1991 said:
That was a good video that Greg tbh.

I personally can't get excited about Fury at all.

Thanks. I am hoping Windows 10 will give some boosts but truthfully, I am underwhelmed by the card overall and performance isn't as good as I was hoping. AMD needed a card to bring them back to the forefront and it just hasn't happened and I am quite gutted. I really wanted them to give Nvidia a good kicking this time but it just didn't happen.

D.P. · 13 Jul 2015 at 18:48

Martini1991 said:
Wouldn't say clock speeds are meaningless.

But comparing clock for clock between two completely different cards with different clocks is hilarious.

That is what I meant.

I've seen this several times now where an AMD fanboy tries to justify the Fury/X by claiming at equal clock speeds the FuryX is faster, utterly meaningless. How about comparing performance at equal power consumption!