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

[Orangey]

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...han-just-an-increase-in-memory-bandwidth.html

Look closer, there's a graph which shows the range.

Spoiler

 

[Kaapstad]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks @tweak PC

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/grafikkarten/radeon_r9_fury_x_vs_geforce_gtx_980_ti_benchmarks/s01.php

 

[Gerard]

Th

No, the whole card gets really friggin hot because there is no fan blowing over it, one of the hottest cards ever made!

Let me guess you seen that one image from the french site showing 104c when the card was running furmark and decided to base your whole spiel off that?

Hate to break it to you, but according to toms hardware the 980 ti under thermal imaging runs hotter than the fury. And bear in mind this is running gaming loops so putting a realistic load on the gpu, not what many would consider an unrealistic thermal virus like furmark.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti,review-33214-8.html

The only time the fury got hotter as a whole was when they were running a torture test, they don't go into details of what this entails but as they run a gaming loop seperately its obviously not a scenario that people are likely to run into.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-8.html

And if you want something that gets as hot as the fury running a thermal virus, well heres the titan x running a gaming loop.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,review-33151-6.html

 

[LoadsaMoney]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks @Tweak PC

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/grafikkarten/radeon_r9_fury_x_vs_geforce_gtx_980_ti_benchmarks/s01.php

Went through all the benchmarks on that one, swapping the res to 1440p, seemed to be on the heels of the Ti, and when you ramped up the AA/AF higher, it went ahead.

 

[LtMatt]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks @Tweak PC

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/grafikkarten/radeon_r9_fury_x_vs_geforce_gtx_980_ti_benchmarks/s01.php

I might be able to verify some of their results as i have a few of those games.

 

[Jono8]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks @Tweak PC

http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/grafikkarten/radeon_r9_fury_x_vs_geforce_gtx_980_ti_benchmarks/s01.php

Seems to confirm what we already know. 980Ti a decent bit quicker at 1080p, 980Ti a bit quicker at 1440p and at 4k the Fury X starts to match it/beat it.

Why does the Fury perform so badly in GTAV though? This seems to be the case in most benches. It can't even beat a 980 in GTAV until you get to 4k.

 

[elmarko]

Very interesting results here, it shows the Fury-X pulling ahead the more grunt is needed - this makes the other results seem strange. Perhaps drivers may be able to pull more out of this than we thought.

It's also good to see how little the 4gb VRAM is holding it back, the GTA issues seem unrelated to VRAM but perhaps are driver issues.

AA

No AA

 

[Jono8]

Very interesting results here, it shows the Fury-X pulling ahead the more grunt is needed - this makes the other results seem strange. Perhaps drivers may be able to pull more out of this than we thought.

It's also good to see how little the 4gb VRAM is holding it back, the GTA issues seem unrelated to VRAM but perhaps are driver issues.

AA

No AA

Well it obviously does well at 4k and with lots of AA, because of the huge bandwith it has.

Unfortunately, it doesnt have the grunt to put out playable/decent framerates in most of the latest and prettiest games at that resolution which makes it a bit of a shallow victory.

In crossfire it should pay dividends though.

 

[Final8y]

Id hazard a good guess that by the time we see DX12 games, the tx/ti and fury will be distant memorys. Rumour that star wars battlefront will be DX12, a game built on quite possibly the buggiest engine ever designed. Dice cant even get bf3/4 to run properly on frostbite never mind a new game. I play a lot of bf4, well i used to. Play cte mainly theese days as the base game is a joke.

BF3/BF4 both run very well for me.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Very interesting results here, it shows the Fury-X pulling ahead the more grunt is needed - this makes the other results seem strange. Perhaps drivers may be able to pull more out of this than we thought.

It's also good to see how little the 4gb VRAM is holding it back, the GTA issues seem unrelated to VRAM but perhaps are driver issues.

AA

No AA

The odd thing is that the 3GB 780Ti doesn't look like it's being hit by VRAM issues either (given the reports about non-Maxwell cards needing some driver love). I'm sure we were told that this was a game that could exceed 4GB even at 1080p but now it's not exceeding 3GB at 4K?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I might be able to verify some of their results as i have a few of those games.

Id be interested in that MAtt

Btw, i notice you have some of the pumps at the bottom of your case, so how are they like that, as not recommended by all accounts ?

Seems to confirm what we already know. 980Ti a decent bit quicker at 1080p, 980Ti a bit quicker at 1440p and at 4k the Fury X starts to match it/beat it.

Why does the Fury perform so badly in GTAV though? This seems to be the case in most benches. It can't even beat a 980 in GTAV until you get to 4k.

Yeah its very odd, as its performing fine here in 1440p and 4k.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-4gb/?page=7

 

[Lokken86]

Very interesting results here, it shows the Fury-X pulling ahead the more grunt is needed - this makes the other results seem strange. Perhaps drivers may be able to pull more out of this than we thought.

It's also good to see how little the 4gb VRAM is holding it back, the GTA issues seem unrelated to VRAM but perhaps are driver issues.

AA

No AA

A clocked 390 would be flying here. Someone tell me what's up with that I thought it was just a 290. Surely the 780ti would be doing better then that too.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Yeah i noticed that, just at Standard, it was behind the Ti, but as soon as you whacked on the AA/AF, it went ahead.

 

[andybird123]

Very interesting results here, it shows the Fury-X pulling ahead the more grunt is needed - this makes the other results seem strange. Perhaps drivers may be able to pull more out of this than we thought.

It's also good to see how little the 4gb VRAM is holding it back, the GTA issues seem unrelated to VRAM but perhaps are driver issues.

because FXAA needs lots of grunt?

 

[TheRealDeal]

A clocked 390 would be flying here. Someone tell me what's up with that I thought it was just a 290. Surely the 780ti would be doing better then that too.

Kepler cards have went backwards in the pecking order due to whatever reasons. A 390x is now competing with a gtx980. Amd's new drivers seem to have given a decent boost to all GCN cards which puts them in an even better light. Most reviews were using the 15.5 driver with others saying there's an even bigger performance boost on newer leaked drivers. It's going to be interesting after all the reviews are done and AMD releases this driver for the whole Gcn range which will make the 290/x an even better buy.

 

[Stanners]

Yeah i noticed that, just at Standard, it was behind the Ti, but as soon as you whacked on the AA/AF, it went ahead.

This must be the benefit of the bandwidth starting to show.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

This must be the benefit of the bandwidth starting to show.

Ahh yeah could be, if you want to be on par with the Ti, beating it in some, just whack all the AA/AF right up

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Maybe that's why they market it as a 4K card, because it's as good/better than the competition then. As i said before though, no good for me as my main interest is 1080p/1440p performance, 4K is bringing average performance at best on any single card.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Maybe that's why they market it as a 4K card, because it's as good/better than the competition then. As i said before though, no good for me as my main interest is 1080p/1440p performance, 4K is bringing average performance at best on any single card.

I went through those benchmarks at 1440p (as im moving to that), and the same happened, good/better than the Ti, so its not just at 4k.

In a few of them, it was down into 3rd, with the old 690 above it on Standard as well, but once id whacked the AA/AF on, it shot to the top.

EDIT: Weird one.

Hitman Absolution 1440p, Standard, its below the Ti and 690, whack the AA/AF on to 4xAA/16xAF, it goes to the top, but if you then change it to 8xAA/16xAF, the Ti goes back to the top, pushing it to 2nd.

 

[elmarko]

because FXAA needs lots of grunt?

Well, that's the point I was making.

It shows that the card has more top end grunt capability even at 4k & it appears that the 4gb memory limit isn't causing issues.

To me this implies that if the core clock can be upped by a reasonable amount with OC/voltage we will be looking at something quite special for high detailed 4k gaming.