• 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****

Grey M@a said:
So those of you with Fury X cards in your mitts, are they worth the money? Are the drivers decent for them?

I was looking at both 980 Ti and Furty X, but I have just been told I can get the MSI Gaming 390x for £287 through a supplier we use for work.

Tempted to sit on a 390x for now and wait it out for 16/20nm process and further HBM improvements.

Reckon this path is better? Would be replacing a 7870 Black Edition so even a 390x should be a decent bump.
Click to expand...

It'll be a huge upgrade, and the 390X beats the 980 above 1920x1080. I still also expect there to be a very large gulf in performance in native DX12 / Vulkan titles.
 
Grey M@a said:
So those of you with Fury X cards in your mitts, are they worth the money? Are the drivers decent for them?

I was looking at both 980 Ti and Furty X, but I have just been told I can get the MSI Gaming 390x for £287 through a supplier we use for work.

Tempted to sit on a 390x for now and wait it out for 16/20nm process and further HBM improvements.

Reckon this path is better? Would be replacing a 7870 Black Edition so even a 390x should be a decent bump.
Click to expand...

If you don't fancy Fury X could always wait a bit longer, and see what Fury (Non X) and Nano are like performance VS price.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Thanks for that, good link. Explained a few things there.
Click to expand...

A bit odd though, remember the "4gb means 4gb" images? Now its "4gb means 4gb plus a percentage of your system ram". Can't help but feel this is vaguely in line with the 970, 4 gigs of high speed ram and x amount of slower speed ram. Surely there has to be some kind of performance trade off?
 
Boomstick777 said:
@ 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?
Click to expand...

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...

3200x1800P for Hawaii users, we still don't have 4K VSR, its 80% of 4K and it does make a big difference even on my 1080P screen, the screen has a very fine pixel grain, 1440P has an immediate image quality impact, its sharper, more crisp with deeper contrast and colours, at 1800P its better again.

I guess your right, i could run more games at 1440P and 1800P.

As for the lack of performance at lower res do you think it could be down to AMD's Driver overhead? Nvidia's is significantly better so it could be that which is holding the big performance boost back as it just can't generate the FPS with the CPU bottleneck.

If its that i don't care. i have Mantle for BF4 which will remove that problem completely and DX12 Games are not far away, they have been in development for a while already SW Battlefront will get it and possibly Mantle.
 
pmc25 said:
It'll be a huge upgrade, and the 390X beats the 980 above 1920x1080. I still also expect there to be a very large gulf in performance in native DX12 / Vulkan titles.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I was just reading the review posted by someone above, While I was waiting for it to load I read your comments. Which according to this are BS.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-amd-at-their-best/2/


You also expect this DX12/Vulkan gulf, Based on what exactly?
 
Boomstick777 said:
If you don't fancy Fury X could always wait a bit longer, and see what Fury (Non X) and Nano are like performance VS price.
Click to expand...

Oh the price isn't an issue, just wondering if its worth waiting it out a year on a 390x until the newer 16/20nm process lands with the HBM memory etc.

Only playing at 1080p at present and the 7870 is starting to go on me.

The 390x is looking a good deal for the price tag of £287 through a supplier at work. Also, anyone know why AMD went with flat DX12 and not support DX12.1 like nVidia have done?

Been on AMD cards since the 5870 and they have always worked for me with very little driver issues so happy to stay with AMD, especially at that 390X price.
 
Grey M@a said:
Oh the price isn't an issue, just wondering if its worth waiting it out a year on a 390x until the newer 16/20nm process lands with the HBM memory etc.

Only playing at 1080p at present and the 7870 is starting to go on me.

The 390x is looking a good deal for the price tag of £287 through a supplier at work. Also, anyone know why AMD went with flat DX12 and not support DX12.1 like nVidia have done?

Been on AMD cards since the 5870 and they have always worked for me with very little driver issues so happy to stay with AMD, especially at that 390X price.
Click to expand...

I would not worry about the DX12 bit, For that price I would snap it up!
 
Grey M@a said:
Oh the price isn't an issue, just wondering if its worth waiting it out a year on a 390x until the newer 16/20nm process lands with the HBM memory etc.

Only playing at 1080p at present and the 7870 is starting to go on me.

The 390x is looking a good deal for the price tag of £287 through a supplier at work. Also, anyone know why AMD went with flat DX12 and not support DX12.1 like nVidia have done?

Been on AMD cards since the 5870 and they have always worked for me with very little driver issues so happy to stay with AMD, especially at that 390X price.
Click to expand...

Yeah but why not wait it out until the newer 16/20nm process while using a Nano vs the 390X? Might be worth giving it a few weeks to see.

R:E DX12_1 I wouldn't worry about that at all. AMD has full DX12 support, if anything DX12_1 will see little to no use or by the time it does we will have much much better cards available. I would put DX12_1 down as Nvidia's marketing mastery. Creating a want for something you don't necessarily need. We don't even have DX12 games yet, if you're planning on switching when we get a die shrink I wouldn't even worry about it.

My plan is AMD Fiji now (depending on how my Fury X performs), then Nvidia's Pascal next year.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Yeah but why not wait it out until the newer 16/20nm process while using a Nano vs the 390X? Might be worth giving it a few weeks to see.

R:E DX12_1 I wouldn't worry about that at all. AMD has full DX12 support, if anything DX12_1 will see little to no use or by the time it does we will have much much better cards available. I would put DX12_1 down as Nvidia's marketing mastery. Creating a want for something you don't necessarily need. We don't even have DX12 games yet, if you're planning on switching when we get a die shrink I wouldn't even worry about it.

My plan is AMD Fiji now (depending on how my Fury X performs), then Nvidia's Pascal next year.
Click to expand...

Was thinking that but I tend to get 2 - 3 years out of a card, but if the newer 16/20nm process comes out and its quick, no doubt I will get the upgrade itch and jump ship before a lengthy period on the 390X
 
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...

I believe it's the front engine is inefficient at lower resolution in the games that it show's poor 1080p performance, I think Nvidia has greater shader throughput and cache throughput but their memory controllers are weak when at higher resolution.

If we we see nvidia's next gen hbm2 and it provides strong lower resolution and higher resolution performance then that will be amazing.
 
humbug said:
Actually if you look at that its the 290X which beats the GTX 980 and the 390X in half the games, Ha! :confused:
Click to expand...

Not really - it is only because of HARDOCP's stupid way of doing benches. The 290x is using lower graphics settings on almost all the games.
 
Davedree said:
I believe it's the front engine is inefficient at lower resolution in the games that it show's poor 1080p performance, I think Nvidia has greater shader throughput and cache throughput but their memory controllers are weak when at higher resolution.

If we we see nvidia's next gen hbm2 and it provides strong lower resolution and higher resolution performance then that will be amazing.
Click to expand...

I would like to see it in Mantle and DX12 or higher 1440P IQ settings, i have a feeling it may be Nvidia's better Driver Overheads.

AMD's Driver is struggling to feed the card very high Draw Calls and high frame rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom