• 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****

J.D said:
Bandwidth. Ask Kaapstad, he knows best. The 290s perform better the higher in resolution they go in comparison to Nvidia. The FuryX from all these varied benchmarks show the same but it's too early to compare to the 290s.
Click to expand...

It's hard to get my head around lol, normally gpu's struggle at the higher res not the lower.

What would be interesting to see is it running a 1440p screen scaled to 4k I guess, like I say im moving to 1440p and want the best solution, I'm an AMD fan at heart but I feel massively deflated after reading the reviews and seeing the 1440p benchmarks
 
SiDeards73 said:
Boom you are correct it looks capable at 4k but that's a niche market still, personally I'm interested in its 1440p performance and to a limited degree it's 1080p performance, what I don't understand is why it seems so lacklustre in those resolutions ?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think the point of this card is 4K. So it's tuned for performance at that res.

It's quite possible as drivers mature things will get better at lower res as well. When the Fury X shines it really does perform well, in most of the big games it's doing well at 1440P / 4K.

It's been a really weird launch this, loads of trolling before hand. The cards are actually quite good but the trolling is relentless.
 
faceman123 said:
But still, if you compare the current price vs the 980ti performance per dollar is strongly I'm the green camp. It's fact, I'll wait for the results to come out but let's be honest with the aio cooler the fury x is balls to the walls. Where the 980ti has plenty of headroom. These cards are at the same price point.
Click to expand...


If you are concerned about price vs performance, you made a mistake.
You should have bought the 295X2. It trashes the 980Ti and the TX, and can be found bellow the £500 mark.
 
old gamer said:
well the card runs cool and quiet and has decent performance, cant see the problem, it may be not as fast as a 980 ti in some games at some res but its not the end of the world
Click to expand...

Agree But compare tdp g sync physics and optimisation by several titles. Hdmi 2.0 Driver support oh and the fact 980ti is better and cheaper. Facts talk...
 
Farcry 4 is one of the few it shows fps gains over the TX but... stutter man... suggests a lot of data swapping with 4K - several reviews show it has significantly higher time spent beyond 30-50ms per frame and a lot less regular frametimes than the TX or 980ti.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Yeah that's it change the narrative ;). With nothing to add that's logical, nice one :D. Stop talking about handbags for a sec and look at the numbers I posted, it is beating the Titan X in a few things what do you say about this?

I feel it's almost like people are choosing to ignore this. I don't if this is a bias thing or what. But it's like I literally don't understand people calling it a fail while it's actually beating the Titan X. Nothing logical to contribute other than FUD and Trolling.

Here is the Fury X destroying the Titan X in Far Cry 4 at 4K? Your opinion?

image.png


Here are benchmarks showing epic Fury X performance, what is your opinion?


image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

FSU_G_500x539.jpg


FSU_O_500x547.jpg


ACU_4k_500x500.jpg

FC_4_K_500x524.jpg

Mordor_4_K_500x524.jpg

0b4985fb_e838_4d50_8e54_bef48d1eaec4.png

4dca991e_e210_41a7_a11d_17c5d81af3e6.png

8921ed86_a43d_40b8_86ec_876bb121dfad.png

de870cb6_5b82_4a7b_a110_1522690cb905.png

eb536925_d494_411c_9f8e_7c6cf600e438.png


708ae925_b8dc_421a_b377_e4a42739515b.png


batman.png

metro.png

shadow.png

talos.png

R9_FURY_X_2_34.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_38.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_42.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_46.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_48.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_50.jpg

R9_FURY_X_2_53.jpg

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


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.
Click to expand...

Oh stop it you. I may have been influenced by the trolling in here. I was, oddly, genuinely getting the impression that this card was a bit of a flop.

Maybe I shoukd do some proper homework before posting in such a heated discussion next time.

I do want this card to succeed and do well. I really do. If it does, I'll finally move to X99 and get one.
 
SiDeards73 said:
It's hard to get my head around lol, normally gpu's struggle at the higher res not the lower.

What would be interesting to see is it running a 1440p screen scaled to 4k I guess, like I say im moving to 1440p and want the best solution, I'm an AMD fan at heart but I feel massively deflated after reading the reviews and seeing the 1440p benchmarks
Click to expand...

The AMD cards are overbuilt. They have prioritized 4K since Hawaii.
 
rolypolyman said:
Like I said before I await the user reviews from the guys on here who have cards from both camps and therefor no axe to grind. A lot of premature drivel on here based on rather dubious reviews to say the least. I certainly hope the Fury X succeeds as I cannot contemplate being a pc gamer with only Nvidia producing cards at extortionate prices. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I think as well. I love Nvidia hardware but lately with drivers being iffy, and Gameworks frankly ruining a few games. I don't want an Nvidia only future. We need competition, to keep prices in check.

I don't get all the hate. These cards from AMD look decent. There at that 980 Ti / Titan X level which is what they needed.

Starting to think that maybe it's just an image thing. AMD can't shake it off.

uksoldierboy said:
Boom did you get just the one or a few? trying to find windows 10 drivers too.
Click to expand...

Just one bud. Sapphire Fury X, coming tomorrow. I'm on Windows 8.1, do you know which driver I should be using?
 
Boomstick777 said:
Yeah I think the point of this card is 4K. So it's tuned for performance at that res.

It's quite possible as drivers mature things will get better at lower res as well. When the Fury X shines it really does perform well, in most of the big games it's doing well at 1440P / 4K.

It's been a really weird launch this, loads of trolling before hand. The cards are actually quite good but the trolling is relentless.
Click to expand...

Can't agree - over a range of benchmarks at 4K even when the framerates beat the TX, etc. it is an average of 62% "less smooth" (not something easy to quantify) in terms of frametimes which suggests some aggressive memory management in effect.
 
Diddums said:
Oh stop it you. I may have been influenced by the trolling in here. I was, oddly, genuinely getting the impression that this card was a bit of a flop.

Maybe I shoukd do some proper homework before posting in such a heated discussion next time.

I do want this card to succeed and do well. I really do. If it does, I'll finally move to X99 and get one.
Click to expand...

Huh?, oh fair enough about that I know its fun to join with a bit of trolling sometimes, but I wanted your opinion on the Fury X beating the Titan X in the benchy's I posted, you never actually commented just started talking about handbags and stuff. Oddly that was my point in that people get caught up in a train of thought and then don't see that the card is actually beating GM200 in some things.

Anyway no worries. Take it easy :)
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Can't agree - over a range of benchmarks at 4K even when the framerates beat the TX, etc. it is an average of 62% "less smooth" (not something easy to quantify) in terms of frametimes which suggests some aggressive memory management in effect.
Click to expand...

Probably better than a slideshow or failure to load, SoM shows us the 4GB thing wasn't an issue after all as far as capacity. But if they can't do anything about that smoothness 8GB will be a high priority.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Starting to think that maybe it's just an image thing. AMD can't shake it off.



Just one bud. Sapphire Fury X, coming tomorrow. I'm on Windows 8.1, do you know which driver I should be using?
Click to expand...

Starting to get the same impression, ordered the same:D haven't a clue sorry which drivers you should be using, i guess start with the latest from AMD first, i heard there's a modded windows 10 driver available but cant for the life of me find it.
 
Orangey said:
The AMD cards are overbuilt. They have prioritized 4K since Hawaii.
Click to expand...

True I guess, issue is if you have a 290 then right now unless your moving to 4k you may as well just wait for die shrink, as the 390x isn't really worth the upgrade cost.

I guess if your going 4k then the FuryX will be half decent but I imagine you may need 2 of them for constant 60fps, or perhaps a Freesync screen will help ?

But for people like me moving from 1080p to 1440p this was the card I was hoping would be the king of 1440p, I guess with Freesync and the right screen it might be decent though and like I say interesting to see 4k scaled on a 1440p screen.

But I just feel AMD haven't really brought much for current 290 owners who are at 1080p and it looks a little bleak moving to 1440
 
SiDeards73 said:
It's hard to get my head around lol, normally gpu's struggle at the higher res not the lower.

What would be interesting to see is it running a 1440p screen scaled to 4k I guess, like I say im moving to 1440p and want the best solution, I'm an AMD fan at heart but I feel massively deflated after reading the reviews and seeing the 1440p benchmarks
Click to expand...

As the resolution increases, the GPU does more of the work. So when the GPU is pushing more at these resolutions, the bandwidth is greater on AMD cards. Look at it like a traffic jam, with Nvidia it's like there being four lanes jammed, with AMD it's 8 lanes so there is more getting through. This is just a rough and short explanation. GTX970/980 was on a 256bit interface vs the 512bit interface of the 290/290X, even the 280/280X is 384bit. In comparison, the 980Ti/Titan-X is using a 384bit interface. So I think in part this is the reason of Kaapstad's findings. I'm sure I've heard something about compression working better with Nvidia to make up for the shortcomings of their interface but I'm not exactly sure if that is true or not.

If I'm wrong or ill-informed about anything, I welcome correction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom