• 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.

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

i am quite surprise as well with their marketing . they had time to prepare for a while even before 980ti release then after ti released . they should come up with better price and strategy
 
nomadd said:
Quote:

// For readers expecting the AMD Fury X review, unfortunately Ryan has been battling a virus this week and despite his best efforts it has taken its toll. The review is near completion but with a couple of key elements still to do - please keep your eyes peeled over the next few days for the full analysis.

Look on the bright side: the price might have come down by then. :)
Click to expand...

What a slacker!! Tell he isn't self-employed then ;) :D :p
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Well I guess this sort of clears up the confusion about the Nano.
Is it about the same performance as a 290X or is it 80% the performance of the Fury X? Turns out that's about the same thing...
Click to expand...

LOL.

Now wait for the price to be £400+ on the Nano, and it's a full house (of fail) for AMD :p

Sad times. I used to like AMD. I even used to buy their CPUs, many years ago...
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Well I guess this sort of clears up the confusion about the Nano.
Is it about the same performance as a 290X or is it 80% the performance of the Fury X? Turns out that's about the same thing...
Click to expand...

fury x is 40% faster than a 290x. so 80% would be still 11% faster than a 290x..................????? :confused:
 
RavenXXX2 said:
CEO said she doesn't want to see AMD as the cheap alternative. She carries on like this there won't be an AMD.
Click to expand...

i think AMD tried hard here, they almost gave Nvidia a rude shock.... this is deffo a wake up call for Nvidia and it goes like this :-

Small Form factor is the future, no more massive GPUs from now on.

AMD will deffo get it right with the Dual card, because regardless of everything, it'll still be massively powerful.

in many ways they did not need the Fury X, they only needed the Dual Card, but at much lesser a price than a normal Dual card .

but no, AMD had no clear water, they were boxed in, the FuryX was too close to the competition and was thus DESTROYED

this next Dual card looks really good.... now this needs to be £750, for GOD sake dont get this wrong too :mad:
 
Greebo said:
fury x is 40% faster than a 290x. so 80% would be still 11% faster than a 290x..................????? :confused:
Click to expand...

According to hardop it can occasionally spike to 60%+ but ONLY if there's a heavy amount of tessellation going on.

In this test we are running at "Ultra" settings with HairWorks turned on. HairWorks adds a lot of tessellation and is quite demanding. You can see that the older Radeon R9 290X falls flat on its face with tessellation here in this game. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is a major improvement over the AMD Radeon R9 290X, by a whopping 70%!
Click to expand...

Witcher 3. ^
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
LOL.

Now wait for the price to be £400+ on the Nano, and it's a full house (of fail) for AMD :p

Sad times. I used to like AMD. I even used to buy their CPUs, many years ago...
Click to expand...

Cant see it. The fury pro is £410 to £420. I know the nano is smaller but less powerful. It should be less money IMO.
 
Mal X said:
i think AMD tried hard here, they almost gave Nvidia a rude shock.... this is deffo a wake up call for Nvidia and it goes like this :-

Small Form factor is the future, no more massive GPUs from now on.

AMD will deffo get it right with the Dual card, because regardless of everything, it'll still be massively powerful.

in many ways they did not need the Fury X, they only needed the Dual Card, but at much lesser a price than a normal Dual card .

but no, AMD had no clear water, they were boxed in, the FuryX was too close to the competition and was thus DESTROYED

this next Dual card looks really good.... now this needs to be £750, for GOD sake dont get this wrong too :mad:
Click to expand...

They did though. I dont really think Nivida intended to release a 980ti at the price they did, just a month or two after releasing the titan x and the 980ti is quicker. They were forced to by the fury x.
 
AMD have ended up with egg on their face.

Here we are years after the 290 cards hit and with HBM, AMD hit us with a card that is slower than Nvidia's second tier GPU and with less memory.

Less fury and more furry kitten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom