Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 12:59

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:15

Mayh3M said:
Wow I really expected this to beat the 980 Ti.

At least match it more consistently.

easyrider said:
why would anyone spend 650 on this card?

RRP is meant to be around £500 and only mad people would spend £650 on this!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:31

I added some foreign reviews from some of the better non-English language sites too,and they are usually worth a read if translated.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:33

TBH,if AMD does have some performance drivers soon and its a big "if" they should have launched the Fury X at the same time as the Fury next month.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:39

Rroff said:
If they took the 980ti - decreased the VRAM to 4GB (which would reduce the price and heat, etc. a bit - haven't bothered to work out what exact amounts are possible without design changes) stuck an AIO on it they'd be able to blow the Fury out the water both on price and performance... HBM really doesn't look like its going to do anything this generation other than cost AMD more out the pocket than if they'd stuck with one last round of GDDR5.

If they used only 4GB it would probably mean it would need some of the memory controller disabling down to 256 bit.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:44

I have a feeling what HBM has done is helped them to reduce board power down,and improve performance/watt over Hawaii. I really hope for the sake of AMD,they can improve the performance/watt of GCN next year,for their sake.

Looks like I will probably getting an Nvidia card(more midrange though) to replace my current Kepler one.

Even at the sub £200 range they have majorly booed,booed not releasing a fully enabled Tonga.

Freddie1980 said:
Nvidia have been able to get two brand new architecture designs out on 28nm whereas AMD have been stuck with GNC since 2011 which was behind Kepler in terms of efficiency to start with.

Not entirely true with Kepler. It was true of Tahiti against the GK104,but not of the GPUs under them.

However,after that things went a bit awry.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 13:58

Freddie1980 said:
I'm in the same boat, I'm and ATI fan not an AMD fan but AMD gets some business out of my because I like the cards that ATI used to produce and would like to replace my GTX670 with AMD card but frankly they have disappointed/underwhelmed me with EVERY new release since the 7970.

Someone at AMD needs realise performance sells and being 2nd on the benchmark graphs is akin to winning the 100m Spint silver medal at the Olympics i.e. nobody can remembers that persons name.

Well,even at the lower end,they didn't even release a fully enabled Tonga and just rejigged the R9 285. A fully enabled Tonga would have given the GTX960 some better competition. ATM,we end up having a meh set of options under £200.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 14:05

Valenni said:
Me strokes my 980 Ti SC+ ACX and smiles.

Wait,its not in your PC?? :eek:

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 20:59

AMD marketing and market research just comes across as half baked when compared to Nvidia in recent years.

Seriously,are they that dumb?? What did they expect from reviews?? They should have dropped the price to £450 RPP with the current set of drivers,so it was not competing directly with the GTX980TI but more with the GTX980. Heck,even only release a limited quantity just for halo reasons if they don't make much money just to strengthen the brand.

Or if there were driver improvements to be had,why launch now?? They should have launched it on the 14th of July FFS.

Plus no voltage unlock on launch day. Seriously,WTF?? The GTX980TI cards are awesome overclockers.

The only way I can see this as a positive is if the actually custom Fury cards are overclocking monsters and make the Fury X look redundant in some way,ie, a bit like the GTX980TI against the Titan X.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 22:33

faceman123 said:
I guarantee if this card lived up to the hype all the green fan boys would.switch.

No they wouldn't. They still bought FX GPUs with the 9700 PRO being out!! Bought GTX285 cards when the HD5870 was out and so on!!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 23:23

andybird123 said:
When you've had to put up with weeks of hearing how amazing AMD's next card will be, a little bit of "I told you so" from people who pointed out some inconsistencies in what was being said is well to be expected.

If you were having so much psychological suffering due to it why were you going into said AMD threads??

It's the internet - nobody is forcing you to read them!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 23:32

andybird123 said:
Where did I say I was suffering?
I was pointing out that the AMD fans were setting themselves up for a comeuppance, and the end result is the hilarity that is ensuing now.

I find the ocuk forums a source of great amusement, never suffering.

But again you said you had to put up with it meaning you were suffering psychologically from the annoyance.
However, the most hope was in the various AMD Fury threads not Nvidia ones in general so you did not need to read them and put up with anything.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 24 Jun 2015 at 23:42

andybird123 said:
I didn't say I was putting up with anything, as I haven't been gloating, I was pointing out why some people might be gloating.

But you did:

"When you've had to put up with weeks...."

Seriously, outside the obvious Fury threads most of the others in this sub-forum were nothing to do with the cards at all.

Nobody needed to put up with anything unless you physically wanted to be in the threads to read about the rumours for the cards.

Plus if someone did try trolling Nv threads then tell the mods!!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 00:09

What's more amazing is that someone at AMD thought it was fit to release to reviewers in this state and at the same price as the GTX980TI. Might be the same fools behind the FX9590....

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 00:14

LoadsaMoney said:
It does yeah, im totally lost now.

Also considering that they probably knew the current inconsistencies with performance as they obviously tested the card beforehand.

Seriously, what were they thinking? They are just giving their competitors free PR paid out of their own pockets.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 00:16

Gerard said:
Could be down to the way they test, i know hardocp and some sites do actual playthroughs lasting a while, some sites do like quick 1 minute run throughs which might not be enough to show the range of fps that other sites are showing.

Some sites also pre-heat cards longer so to reduce the effects of short term boosting.

Plus some sites only use in game benchmark tools.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 08:35

MR.B said:
I'm pretty ****** off. I've been waiting for Fury X for SO long. I've not played many games for months because of it. Now it arrives and it's not even matching the 980 Ti, and to top it off it's a paper launch. You can't actually buy one yet.

Fury X is good for 4K, but the 980 Ti is still generally faster at 4K.

Fury X will likely improve as drivers mature - but that's months of waiting. Forget it. I doubt it will outright beat the 980 Ti even with mature drivers anyway.

980 Ti overclocks better.

I can actually buy a 980 Ti right now.

And.. i just got one for just under £500. Deal.

If the Fury X was cheaper and available now i'd get it, because i prefer AMD as their cards have better image output, which is useful for my graphics/photo work. And i don't mean 3D related stuff, i mean general image output. Whites are whiter/brighter and colours more vibrant, yet not saturated. It's something you'll only really notice on a high-end 10-bit IPS monitor (1 billion+ colours). There's no way to get a NV card to match it by messing around with options, either within software or on the monitor. Believe me, i've tried countless times over the years.

However i've not used a NV card since the 500 series, so maybe this issue no longer exists but i doubt it. I'll just have to live with it i guess.

Or you could have got the Fury which will be much cheaper and be available in actual numbers on the 14th?

I doubt its going to be much slower.

Shrugs.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 08:46

I think the way the launch was handled and even the current pricing needs to be criticised since AMD PR and marketing screwed it up and they need a kick up the arse. In its current shape it should have been £450 and if there are driver issues it should have not been launched yet - its as simple as that.

Yet we have cheaper Fury being released on the 14th which should not be much slower than Fury and probably closer to £400 to £450 unless AMD screw that up too.

This is why some of the E-PEEN hysteria is getting ridiculous especially when it's mostly coming from people who probably have half decent rigs already.

They should try looking at the sub £200 arena. It's totally rubbish with the GTX960 and R9 285/R9 380.

Hardly a progression in any way and full of rebranded and sidegrade cards.

Many of us have been waiting years for decent upgrades in that tier and its not happening unless we spend massively more money what we did for a similar performance increase from stuff we bought years ago.

I hate 28nm with a passion now.

It's all the fault of the subpar fab,TSMC.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 09:25

LOL,my mate is running Elite: Dangerous at 1080p on an overclocked GTX650TI Boost 2GB and the performance looked fine,even doing the dogfights.

Now wonder when it does not need that much graphics hardware to run on:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1738-elite-dangerous-gpu-benchmark-4k-fps

Edit!!

More benchmarks:

http://www.hardwarepal.com/elite-dangerous-benchmark-performance/

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 25 Jun 2015 at 09:36

elmarko said:
Mostly because the advantage of an AIO cooler is the impressive over-clocks they can reach. At this stage we don't know if this is worth the additional cost or not (if it over-clocks like a dog, there is no point to it having an AIO cooler imho)

You can get almost silent air cooled after-market cards already, so the noise isn't a huge seller on it's own (it also has a greater fitting requirement).

Which just means AMD marketing has messed up even more.

AMD talked about the card being an overclockers dream,it has an AIO and also a power section which is quite beefy. Yet,the software support is not there from day one.

Honestly,what are they smoking?? They should have just waited a few more weeks until the Fury launch to actually launch the card with better game drivers and overclocking support from day one.

People might say Nvidia did not have proper overclocking support from day one too with some of their cards,but AMD is launching its new card into a market where GTX980TI overclocking support is well defined.

Or at the very least dropped the RRP down to £450,for what looks like will be a limited run of cards anyway.

Most of this is entirely the fault of AMD themselves. They could have come out of this much better,but seem to be stuck in a reality distortion field.

Competitor rules

****Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread****

Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread