It is good at 4k, we know that. Trouble is, that is a very small percentage of the market.
On an unrelated note. Will there be no non reference or factory overclocked Fury's? I cannot see any in the Overclocker's product page.
-
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****
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
It is good at 4k, we know that. Trouble is, that is a very small percentage of the market.
On an unrelated note. Will there be no non reference or factory overclocked Fury's? I cannot see any in the Overclocker's product page.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 2,813
- Location
- London
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28223418&postcount=421
I can cut my own grass thank you very much
. 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Now I'm really confused.
Yeah same here, another good review for it that, but at the minute its all, reviews having it equalling the Ti, reviews having it getting smashed off the Ti, and even getting beat of the 980.
fixed
But even at 1440p it appears competitive against the 980ti and Titan X, depending on where you look.
Based on what, a wing and a prayer
Based on Mantle being entirely about parallelisation, individual workloads for shader units, throughput, and almost removing CPU overhead entirely (for all intents and purposes) at higher resolutions in most games.
Mantle heavily influenced both the conception and production of DX12 and forms much of the code base of Vulkan.
Until Pascal, NVIDIA don't have a GPU architecture that is designed for the above, and their drivers (to their credit) had less CPU overhead than AMD in previous DX versions.
It's not pie in the sky. Fiji (and GCN generally) are a vastly better fit for the new APIs than anything NVIDIA have.
To be fair, I think this is a good card, just not as powerful as I thought it would be. It's the look of it I don't like that much, though I applaud them for their innovation and the smaller size of the card. Noise and power consumption looks to be fine, too.
All hail Kaapstad and BoomStick!. We'll find out soon and they both have Titan-x to compare.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
I was gona spend over a grand on one, as was going to get a new monitor to go with it! LOL
fixed
lol no really
oc3d say its no faster than a 980 but still give it gold
which i dont understand
then other reviews say its as fast as a TI but dont rate it so high
there's more drama on the way my nose is itchy
means more drama!
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,315
- Location
- UK.
Instead, the Radeon R9 Fury X delivers performance surreally similar to Nvidia’s 980 Ti. Sure, the GM200-based board tends to finish ahead at 2560x1440, while the Fury’s massive memory bandwidth gives it the advantage at 3840x2160. In either case, though, you’d have a tough time telling the two cards apart.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,254
- Location
- London
Well there must be something about these cards that AMD feel they warrent the price tag.
Maybe the memory bus or something will come good (like the FX CPU) once DX12 drops...
If not, then AMD have not a scooby do what their doing.
Maybe the memory bus or something will come good (like the FX CPU) once DX12 drops...
If not, then AMD have not a scooby do what their doing.
Last edited:
Cool story
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,034