• 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 don't think the Fury X is quite as bad as a lot of people seem to be making out.
It's disappointing after all the hype for sure, but it still seems like a decent card. A month earlier would've been nice though.

I hope Kaap's right about more mature drivers increasing performance (of course if the same goes for Nvidia's drivers, which currently seem to be going through a bad patch, the difference may not change too much).
Hopefully when we get the ability to overclock things will change too, hopefully they'll do really well in that regard.

We also have the unknown aspect that is DX12/Vulkan. This may benefit one vendor more than the other, especially if as people have said they're both just Mantle with the name changed. Mantle which was designed with GCN in mind.
Of course by the time they really come into play most enthusiasts will be looking at moving on I'd imagine.
 
Secret_Window said:
Now I know why AMD's video presentation for the 300 series and Fury seemed so forced and awkward, because even the people working for them probably knew it was never going to cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

I also remembered, during the E3 conference, when the Taiwanese woman commented on how excited the architecture designer looked, he sheepishly looked back at her and said yes in a rather unconvincing fashion. I guess they already knew what they had coming.

Having said that, for someone who is going after a single gpu solution, on a small form factor or is thinking of moving to one, then the AMD Fury X or Nano still makes a lot of sense, since they are smaller and runs cooler. But to make themselves attractive, they would have to price themselves somewhere inbetween that of the 980 and the standard 980ti.
 
Extremely disappointing.

AMD's future now completely hinges on their Zen CPU's - if they turn out to be another Bulldozer, they really will die this time around, or be acquired by Samsung (and loose the X86 license).

All hail NVIDIA - now we can expect £600-1000 GPU's every 6 months, with 5% more performance.
 
Dave2150 said:
Extremely disappointing.

AMD's future now completely hinges on their Zen CPU's - if they turn out to be another Bulldozer, they really will die this time around, or be acquired by Samsung (and loose the X86 license).

All hail NVIDIA - now we can expect £600-1000 GPU's every 6 months, with 5% more performance.
Click to expand...

At least it's progress! :p






:(
 
Dave2150 said:
Extremely disappointing.

AMD's future now completely hinges on their Zen CPU's - if they turn out to be another Bulldozer, they really will die this time around, or be acquired by Samsung (and loose the X86 license).

All hail NVIDIA - now we can expect £600-1000 GPU's every 6 months, with 5% more performance.
Click to expand...

Unless they can drop the prices, I really don't see how any of their new line up is going to sell to be quite honest.
 
i would like to see benchmarks using the new h4x'd!? windows 10 drivers
wonder if it will make a difference

a month from now it could be close but pretty hard to change peoples opinions
 
I think AMD's direction is confused.

They seem to be marketing this card for 4k, and lets be honest they have to because it only competes or marginally beats the 980Ti at that resolution. However, they have given it 4gb of ram, and we are simply not at a stage yet where gpu hardware is powerful enough to play the latest games in 4k at decent framerates (without going multi gpu). There are many graphs with the Fury x getting 1 or 2fps more than the 980Ti at 4k in the latest and best looking games yet it is a worthless victory in a way because these cards can only pump out about 30fps on average at that resolution anyway - virtually unplayable or at least not very nice.

Nvidia seem to have got it spot on. They know most people still game at 1080p with a smaller amount at 1440p. I suspect that is why they have made sure Maxwell performs so well at these resolutions, especially 1080p. The percentage of people playing at 4k is just too small to make 4k your focus in the gpu market at the moment. This is where Nvidia's Titan comes in - they know full well that the majority of people with a 4k display will likely have the cash to ***** on 4x Titans regardless of the cost. That is why they charge lol money for them.

AMD need to rethink their direction in my opinion because looking at their current range, Nvidia have them beat, pretty much everywhere. They need to stop focusing on memory bandwidth which they seem to have had an obsession about for the last few generations and focus on efficient, cool, quiet 1080p performance as that is what the majority of people want.

This will ofcourse change and 1440p and 4k will become more common in a few years time but Nvidia will simply follow the curve and make the cards perform at that resolution when they have to and not years too early.
 
Last edited:
Kaapstad said:
Have some faith like I did.:)

My Fury Xs are on their way (thankyou OcUK).:)

Remember the Fury X packs 8.9 billion transistors on the core and once the drivers are sorted they will start punching their weight. The Titan X only packs 8.0 billion transistors, runs on air and uses old fashioned GDDR5, this is not over yet it is just the start.
Click to expand...

Well i'm glad you have some, i look forward to your tests.

On this, look at the CPU market, Intel have no competition, they are selling mid range CPU's for high end GPU prices, they have improved the performance at 3% increments in the last 4 generations, meanwhile the only other X86 Vendor cannot sell their CPU's to cover their costs.

There are two GPU vendors, one of them has a rapidly declining market share and cannot sell its GPU's at a price and in numbers to sustain themsleves.

Take TPU's overall performance benchmarks, the £550 - £650 Fury-X is 10 or 15% faster than a £350 GTX 980 and 15% slower than the one at around the same price, its Nvidia with the 80% market share, before this year is out it will be 90%.
 
I wonder if gibbo knows something we don't? He did say when he was testing the Fury that the performance seemed inconsistent and that there might be a driver issue. Whether this true or not, I don't know... Maybe there is a glimmer of hope yet?
 
Secret_Window said:
I wonder if gibbo knows something we don't? He did say when he was testing the Fury that the performance seemed inconsistent and that there might be a driver issue. Whether this true or not, I don't know... Maybe there is a glimmer of hope yet?
Click to expand...

Its brand new technology, drivers could release more performance for sure, how much who knows.

But there is no over-volt tool yet, this will also help with overclocking vastly potential, if such a tool ever becomes available.

Lets see how Fury is performing overclocked in a months time when hopefully such a tool exist and drivers have matured a little. :)
 
Thing is, if it was a driver issue surely during this long wait they would have at least gotten something half decent out for launch. Voltage unlock could be interesting but again I can't understand why it wouldn't be available at launch. I have a feeling we will be underwhelmed again once this is available.
 
whyscotty said:
Even if it is a driver issue - a lot of damage has been done
Click to expand...

This, a lot of people have been waiting for this card and it seems you might need to wait nearly a month just to get one for £509 and then be told you may have to wait longer for drivers to mature. Most people will just buy a 980ti, seen a lot of comments already about people doing just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom