• 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****

Just had a thought

Does anyone think the poor showing of HBM @1080p is down to the low clockspeed it uses ?

What I mean by this is with it's very wide bus it is ideal for 2160p where the fps are lower but for 1080p most of the bus is not getting used but the clockspeed is more important as the fps are higher.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Agreed, when the dust settles, prices come down a bit I think Fury X will be a worthy choice for people.

Fury and Nano coming soon and might spice things up a bit more.

I think Fury will likely benefit from better drivers for performance whereas Maxwell is pretty mature at this point. Also voltage control and custom BIOS means Fury X should be fun to play with. No one has seen what Fiji can really do yet, as right now there is no voltage control.

7970, 290X benefited from drivers as they matured, so much so that they ended up being better performers to their competitors GTX 680, GTX Titan further down the road and having good longevity. Fury X could well be the same. Give it some time.
Click to expand...

Problem being "could be" .
Atm Nvidia has a far larger market share and the 300 series and fury x needed to address that now not in however long a driver /overclocking improvement is away. People were advised for ages wait for top end maxwell then wait for fury now its out people want to make a choice and upgrade not months away. I just feel fury should have came out swinging and with drivers/overclocking sorted and lead AMD upwards . Yes it still might but already we see users that were going to buy fury changing there minds and going for 980ti's
I like the size and what furys seems to be capable of just seems to lack the overall package if you know what i mean. Its a good card But atm its not a great one
 
triss said:
Problem being "could be" .
Atm Nvidia has a far larger market share and the 300 series and fury x needed to address that now not in however long a driver /overclocking improvement is away. People were advised for ages wait for top end maxwell then wait for fury now its out people want to make a choice and upgrade not months away. I just feel fury should have came out swinging and with drivers/overclocking sorted and lead AMD upwards . Yes it still might but already we see users that were going to buy fury changing there minds and going for 980ti's
I like the size and what furys seems to be capable of just seems to lack the overall package if you know what i mean. Its a good card But atm its not a great one
Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you are saying. I still think Fury X is a good option for people. Pricing will probably drop sub £500 over next few months. Fury and Nano will launch and be more budget friendly, that might be where AMD regains marketshare tbh.

I think the flagship Fury X might have a lot more to give. It's so new that with a bit of time it might stretch it's legs. Like you say performance on day one matters, I think @ stock it does a good job VS stock Titan X and 980 Ti, reviews are pretty much all over the place, but Fury X does perform really well in a lot of big games.

Kaapstad said:
Just had a thought

Does anyone think the poor showing of HBM @1080p is down to the low clockspeed it uses ?

What I mean by this is with it's very wide bus it is ideal for 2160p where the fps are lower but for 1080p most of the bus is not getting used but the clockspeed is more important as the fps are higher.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I so think Fury X is really tuned for 4K resolution whereas Fury and Nano might be targeting 1440P, 1080P. Pricing should be better to on those. early days for Fiji though. Interesting to see what new drivers etc bring to the table.
 
Last edited:
triss said:
Problem being "could be" .
Atm Nvidia has a far larger market share and the 300 series and fury x needed to address that now not in however long a driver /overclocking improvement is away. People were advised for ages wait for top end maxwell then wait for fury now its out people want to make a choice and upgrade not months away. I just feel fury should have came out swinging and with drivers/overclocking sorted and lead AMD upwards . Yes it still might but already we see users that were going to buy fury changing there minds and going for 980ti's
I like the size and what furys seems to be capable of just seems to lack the overall package if you know what i mean. Its a good card But atm its not a great one
Click to expand...

Waiting is not good, if you need to upgrade then do it.

As most people know I have a few cards I can choose from if I want to game and to be honest for most things they are all fine. A TX may be about 50% faster than an original Titan and the 290X, 980, Fury X, are somewhere between the two but they can all get the job done in most situations.

If you find you need to upgrade do it, don't wait and even if what you buy is a few % slower than the fastest on the market it will still get the job done.:)
 
Kaapstad said:
As most people know I have a few cards I can choose from if I want to game and to be honest for most things they are all fine. A TX may be about 50% faster than an original Titan and the 290X, 980, Fury X, are somewhere between the two but they can all get the job done in most situations.
Click to expand...

Yeah with that said, I just fancy running AMD for a while, something different. Have a play with Fury X until a die shrink and the mighty Pascal arrive.
 
If your running 4K its fine, a bit pricy compared with the 980TI for that but it does perform as well at 4K.

The problem come when like me people are looking for more power then their Hawaii Cards to run significantly better 1080P or 1440P native or VSR.

Thats where the Fury-X doesn't add up, its really not much faster that Hawaii, its especially concerning for me as i'm waiting on the cut down Fury Nano, if Fury-X is anything to go by it will not give me anything other than marginal performance increase, even with 1000 Shaders more than i have.

Fury-X is 5% faster than the 980 at 1080P, its £350, if Fury Nano <5% faster than my factory overclocked 290 @ £400+ whats the point of it?
 
Last edited:
@ Humbug, Didn't you say VSR. So wouldn't you be rendering at higher than 1080P anyway?

Think we're at that transition stage now where new high end cards really are being targeted for 4K. If you're at 1080P could VSR @ 4K for a much nicer image quality.

R:E the Nano, the point of it. A sexy looking ITX card? Small form factor cases? 290X beating performance with less TDP for people who want an alternative to Nvidia's 970 or 980?
 
I'm pretty ****** off. I've been waiting for Fury X for SO long. I've not played many games for months because of it. Now it arrives and it's not even matching the 980 Ti, and to top it off it's a paper launch. You can't actually buy one yet.

Fury X is good for 4K, but the 980 Ti is still generally faster at 4K.

Fury X will likely improve as drivers mature - but that's months of waiting. Forget it. I doubt it will outright beat the 980 Ti even with mature drivers anyway.

980 Ti overclocks better.

I can actually buy a 980 Ti right now.

And.. i just got one for just under £500. Deal.


If the Fury X was cheaper and available now i'd get it, because i prefer AMD as their cards have better image output, which is useful for my graphics/photo work. And i don't mean 3D related stuff, i mean general image output. Whites are whiter/brighter and colours more vibrant, yet not saturated. It's something you'll only really notice on a high-end 10-bit IPS monitor (1 billion+ colours). There's no way to get a NV card to match it by messing around with options, either within software or on the monitor. Believe me, i've tried countless times over the years.

However i've not used a NV card since the 500 series, so maybe this issue no longer exists but i doubt it. I'll just have to live with it i guess.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
If your running 4K its fine, a bit pricy compared with the 980TI for that but it does perform as well at 4K.

The problem come when like me people are looking for more power then their Hawaii Cards to run significantly better 1080P or 1440P native or VSR.

Thats where the Fury-X doesn't add up, its really not much faster that Hawaii, its especially concerning for me as i'm waiting on the cut down Fury Nano, if Fury-X is anything to go by it will not give me anything other than marginal performance increase, even with 1000 Shaders more than i have.

Fury-X is 5% faster than the 980 at 1080P, its £350, if Fury Nano <5% faster than my factory overclocked 290 @ £400+ whats the point of it?
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the AIO cooler that comes as standard, people in the TX and 980 Ti threads are paying extra to get an AIO cooler on their cards.

My gut feeling is if you max the settings @1080p this will show the Fury X in a better light compared to a 980. I also think that things will improve as AMD get used to writing drivers for HBM.:)
 
Rroff said:
May be some teething issues with certain software/drivers/hardware configurations may even be silly things like its performs significantly different if paired up with dual channel v quad channel memory or vice versa or some reviewers using less than adequate CPU setups.
Click to expand...

Just had a quick look, out of interest. HardOCP tested with a 3770k. Toms, which was more favourable, used a 5930k.

I'll compile a list of all the test beds used in reviews when I get home from work.
 
Kaapstad said:
You are forgetting the AIO cooler that comes as standard, people in the TX and 980 Ti threads are paying extra to get an AIO cooler on their cards.

My gut feeling is if you max the settings @1080p this will show the Fury X in a better light compared to a 980. I also think that things will improve as AMD get used to writing drivers for HBM.:)
Click to expand...

I think a lot of posters are unhappy because they were looking for a new AMD GPU to better the 980Ti and possibly the Titan X. Price wise I think we will see the Fury X come down quickly in a few months time.
 
Kaapstad said:
Just had a thought

Does anyone think the poor showing of HBM @1080p is down to the low clockspeed it uses ?

What I mean by this is with it's very wide bus it is ideal for 2160p where the fps are lower but for 1080p most of the bus is not getting used but the clockspeed is more important as the fps are higher.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should post up my review. :)

But yes at lower resolutions games like raw MHz clock speeds, just like at low resolutions your processor has more of an impact.

So at sub 1600P the 980Ti is the most powerful card, especially OC models. But at higher resolutions such as 4k MHz is less important and now bandwidth is what the game wants, this is why Fury at 4k is ideal as long as it does not become VRAM limited. As such at 4k it is far closer to 980Ti and sometimes trades blows.
 
Gibbo said:
Maybe I should post up my review. :)

But yes at lower resolutions games like raw MHz clock speeds, just like at low resolutions your processor has more of an impact.

So at sub 1600P the 980Ti is the most powerful card, especially OC models. But at higher resolutions such as 4k MHz is less important and now bandwidth is what the game wants, this is why Fury at 4k is ideal as long as it does not become VRAM limited. As such at 4k it is far closer to 980Ti and sometimes trades blows.
Click to expand...

(Maybe I should post up my review)

Yes please Gibbo.
 
How can you trust amd to tweak drivers on a game by game basis or 1 card when they can't tweak crossfire profiles fpr new game releases? ? And what happens if/when fury 2 comes out with 8gb, will 4gb fury still be receiving custom drivers for every game? They gonna drop it like it's hot ...
 
I really want a new GPU, but am truly stumped as of now.

I will wait an month, and see what happens.
Hmmmmmmm, I like AMD, but the driver support is putting me off. Never been to the green side though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom