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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Think we just need to be realistic AMD are in their Computing and Graphics division over the last year, operating income:

2014 Q1: -$3m
2014 Q2: +$9m
2014 Q3: -$17m
2014 Q4: -$56m
2015 Q1: -$75m

Remember, the R200 series launched in Q4 2013... While i know the C&G division isn't not just GPUs, it's been no secret they've struggled in that area.

They made greater losses due to the fabs overall in previous years,and yet they launched multiple new shrinks.

One of the reasons for their losses has been penalty payments due to the WSA with GF,since they agreed to do a certain amount of business over the next few years. This primarily affects their CPU lines,especially when they had to buy a certain amount of chips,or amend the agreement. So it either led to an oversupply of chips or a penalty payment to GF.

All noise indicated they are moving over more and more of their business to GF.

The console SOCs for example are all made at GF IIRC,and having GPUs with them means they can actually meet those obligations I suspect.

I honestly think a lot of people will still be at 1080p, so I reckon that 1080p is definitely an important area.

Out of a few dozen gamers I personally know and have met at LANs,I know NO gamer who has £500+ cards and are still at 1080P.

Zero.Zilch.

Heck,the three people I know with an Oculus Rift are all running GTX970 cards.

Met benchmarkers and people running 2560 and multiple displays who do have SLI/XFire cards or running the high end single GPU cards.

Not at 1080P though.

Its only going to get worse when cheaper G-Sync and Freesync 1080p displays will be out.

AOC already have a 1080p Freesync display for £230 which is being released soon.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I wonder what all this focus on 1080p is about by a lot of people.

All those l33t gamers who wants their max performance right on max graphics settings??

Yet,it appears a number of hardcore FPS gamers appear to turn down the graphics settings and increase draw distance. Why?? Much more consistent FPS,less folliage means its easier to spot people and the max draw distance means you can see the enemy easier.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I do wonder...if the Fury X performance is actually being held back by dx9/dx11 like chains?

Would be funny if when dx12 are out, and Fury X become so far ahead of the 980Ti/Titan X because of their Fuji architecture was may be purposely built for dx12, while Nvidia's Maxwell support and hyped up "superior dx12 support over AMD" was just "tickbox feature".

Most probably wishful thinking though

It better be wishful thinking otherwise this forum would implode.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is that it for new cards now until Pascal next year?

Fury is launched on the 14th of July and Fury Nano after that.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

lol, OCUK the biggest retailer in the UK had less than 10, if selling out with that amount means it's done well then pretty much everything has done well on launch day

From the comments:

http://embed.gyazo.com/4d0fea2b6a0b9a13eae366ad22555a1b.png

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD might have screwed up with the drivers sent to reviewers!!

From one of the other threads:

So I read something on /r/pcmasterrace about how the Fury X had the wrong drivers given to the press, and one review with the correct ones had it beating the 980Ti in almost everything or even smashing it in some areas!

The quote in question was here:

Just putting this out there. Here's a review that seems quite different from the other ones: https://translate.google.com/transla...ji-part3.shtml This one actually shows that Fury beats 980 ti in a lot of tests and even titan x in some tests. Of course in lower resolutions it seems that NVidia still wins a lot of times, but it's not as bad as it is with some other reviewers. Now here's a possible reason why. Driver version used in this review is 15.15-180612a-18565BE which the reviewer was sent by AMD on June 18th. The press driver on AMD's FTP server is 15.15-150611a-185358E. I think this is probably the reason of this inconsistency.

This is the thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/3b30bt/discussionfury_x_possibly_reviewed_with_incorrect/

If true what an EPIC FAIL!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Already been debunked, go home.

LOL,why don't you go home. Its not your forum to order people - start your own.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

15.15-180612a-18565BE this was debunked by AMDMatt as the driver was built 3 years from now on the 12th of june. XD

The second string is the build date. First is the driver branch. Last is some kind of build version. At least i think he said all that. It is a few pages back and i CBA to find it.

Yeah,but if you actually see what the HardOCP guy said,he was using the 15th June drivers if you read the thread on their forums.

For what it's worth, the "Catalyst 15.15" driver has a date attached to its rev name. I see three separate versions: June 15th, 17th, and 20th. There might be more that I can't find traces of yet.

The current 15.15 on AMD's website is June 20th revision. HardOCP, for example, used the June 15th revision in their review. All of these drivers are still called "Catalyst 15.15" so I don't know what AMD is doing. Most reviews just say Catalyst 15.15 on their Setup page which means we have no way of knowing which version they actually used.

The launch does seem rather rushed even from reviewers comments.

Not sure why all the hurry especially since Fury is out a few weeks from now.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I am not saying there was no problem with drivers. considering there are better drivers in the 15.20 branch already. Just that this particular driver string they showed was probably a miss print. Although they could have been using the newer drivers in their review.

Yeah,but I suppose in a few weeks once Fury launches we will see if the newer drivers AMD has pushed out give some more consistency to the results.

This reminds me so much of the HD7970 launch at times.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't worry if the next generation of Nvidia cards have better memory management and use less VRAM for equivalent scenes then it will be revolutionary!

But I like how people ignore the different amount if VRAM both Nvidia and AMD cards used for the same games since they use different memory management. Que all the VRAM utilisation wars between the GTX680 and the HD7970 and so on.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

oh, i thought amd promised full featured dx12 on their gcn gpus AKA fury x?

but the fury x as not got full featured dx12, it's only feature level 12.0 just like the 200/300 series..

the full dx12 feature level is 12.1

It's not so clear cut as it appears both AMD and Nvidia support specific DX12 features better than each other.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Anandtech review is finally up.

It appears Fury Nano is a full Fiji chip!!

Unlike the R9 Fury, AMD has announced the bulk of the specs for the R9 Nano. This card will feature a fully enabled Fiji GPU, and given AMD’s goals I suspect this is where we’re going to see the lowest leakage bins end up. What separates R9 Nano from R9 Fury X is the power target, and as a result the expected sustained clockspeeds and performance. The R9 Nano will be a 175W card, 100W less than the R9 Fury X, and even with heavy binning it’s a safe bet that it will not be able to hit/sustain R9 Fury X’s 1050MHz clockspeed. However with that said, because clockspeeds, voltages, and power consumption have a non-linear effect, at this point in time it is reasonable to assume that AMD is going to be able to hit and sustain relatively high clockspeeds even at 175W just by backing off on load voltage. AMD is not giving us any expectations for clockspeeds at this time, though on a personal note based on the kind of clockspeed scaling we see on other 28nm GPUs, I would be surprised if a 175W Fiji could not sustain 800MHz or better in games at 175W, assuming the cooler is capable of dissipating that much heat.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So will we be buying Nanos for OCing...?

These will be the most low leakage dies which means they won't scale as well with higher voltage I suspect.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The G1 is possibly the best GPU ever made.

I said this before Fury X launch and my opinion hasn't changed lol.

Seriously considering that card after my RMA on Fury X is processed. Tbh not sure if I want to get another high end card just yet. I think we might see some price wars in the coming months, or extra incentives like better bundled games etc. Gonna wait and see what happens before next purchase. G1 is in my top considerations, if price comes down then that will be my number one choice.

That would be the 9700 PRO or 8800GTX in the last 12 years.