Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 27 Jun 2015 at 10:49

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! :cool:

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.

Nutella33 · 27 Jun 2015 at 10:51

_Alatar_ said:
I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea at all when it comes to VRAM usage

You can't possibly be comparing rivatuner's numbers (which are almost useless I might add) between 8GB and 4GB cards and saying that it has something to do with new driver level optimizations?

isthisreallife.jpg

Reasonably sure he's saying the optimisations are at work because he's getting the same/better performance outcome using around half the VRAM.
Which does kind of point to efficiencies.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jun 2015 at 10:53

Firefox35 said:
I was making a joke.

Text can be so annoying trying to figure out the jokes especially on this forum lol.

Silent_Scone · 27 Jun 2015 at 10:53

Nutella33 said:
Reasonably sure he's saying the optimisations are at work because he's getting the same performance outcome using around half the VRAM.
Which does kind of point to efficiencies.

No as he implied a GDDR5 card would use 6.5GB in Mordor which would indicate it's on an 8 to 12GB card. Buffer utilisation will scale to the memory available, more is not less. Evidence of apparent efficiency would be comparing a GDDR5 card with 4GB and a Fury X in a similar scenario. Otherwise you're just showing A number with no meaning. These compression techniques are not going to be night and day - buffer management stems mainly from middleware optimisation.

Although Matt only showed one card in GTA 5, just over 3GB of memory is still quite impressive for 4K and 4XMSAA

Final8y · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:06

easyrider said:
Not when something exists that's better...

Unless you can compete in the current market...it's pointless...

That's basic economics

Competing with yourself and beating the competition are 2 different things and its not mandatory you must always beat the competition at the top end and that it must be in one particular metric as if features dont matter.

Dyson still arguably make the best consumer bagless cyclone but there are plenty of other brands that are not as good why do they bother if there top end is not better than the previous Dyson's top model.

You think that very top end TV and Monitor released from each brand is always better than every other brands TVs and Monitors that came before.

You think that the latest top end beko washing machine is better than Samsungs and all the other brands last top end washing machines.

You think that very brands top end phone always beats all of the other brands top end phones that came before.

Sorry it does not work that way, its very rare that its always being about the best of the best as the huge majority never buy them,

Its about having the best that fits ones needs that include features at a price they want to pay hence why on top of all that there are many tiers.

GoogalyMoogaly · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:22

So are we saying AMD didn't need 8GB 290Xs and 390s and 390Xs, they just needed to put some effort in to memory management in the drivers?
But rather than do that they charged people £150 for an extra (on the 290X) 4GB VRAM that people are now showing isn't needed?

Final8y · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:27

GoogalyMoogaly said:
So are we saying AMD didn't need 8GB 290Xs and 390s and 390Xs, they just needed to put some effort in to memory management in the drivers?
But rather than do that they charged people £150 for an extra (on the 290X) 4GB VRAM that people are now showing isn't needed?

Need and want are 2 different things, if someone wants to buy a card with 8GB of Vram an you can offer that then so be it and there are always the minority who really do need it regardless of memory management..

easyrider · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:36

Final8y said:
Competing with yourself and beating the competition are 2 different things and its not mandatory you must always beat the competition at the top end and that it must be in one particular metric as if features dont matter.

Dyson still arguably make the best consumer bagless cyclone but there are plenty of other brands that are not as good why do they bother if there top end is not better than the previous Dyson's top model.

Based on what? It can suck up the most dust?

but you can't compare vacuum cleaners to gfx card when only two top cards exist...

You think that very top end TV and Monitor released from each brand is always better than every other brands TVs and Monitors that came before.

No...there are many variants..for people's usage...but you can't compare monitors to gfx cards when only two top card exist...

You think that the latest top end beko washing machine is better than Samsungs and all the other brands last top end washing machines.

No there are many variants...but you can't compare washing machines to gfx cards when only two top cards exist..

In fact many beko washers get better reviews than washing machines that cost twice as much...meaning they clean clothes better for less.

You think that very brands top end phone always beats all of the other brands top end phones that came before.

No there are many variants...but you can't compare phones to gfx cards when only two top cards exist.

Sorry it does not work that way, its very rare that its always being about the best of the best as the huge majority never buy them,

Its about having the best that fits ones needs that include features at a price they want to pay hence why on top of all that there are many tiers.

Not when it comes to gfx cards...either one is faster than the other or not...if they are the same price....if it's slower it has to be cheaper...

Bonjour · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:45

DarrenM343 said:
Fair enough but what you did say was very similar to the old school belief that some have that memory usage should be minimal or if not, it's use is not optimised, hence, just clarifying that it doesn't need to be .

Nah, and to be honest it was worthwhile clarifying.

In an ideal world all cards would have (practically) limitless VRAM like the Titan X. For those that don't, though, it's a concern that needs to be addressed with smarter memory management.

Final8y · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:46

easyrider said:
Not when it comes to gfx cards...either one is faster than the other or not...if they are the same price....if it's slower it has to be cheaper...

Seeing as you dont understand that analogies do not have to come from the same field ill just snip that from the quote.
There are lot of examples that contradicted that and features that fits ones needs do come into it whether you want to accept that or not.

End of.

gareth170 · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:46

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

Silent_Scone · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:51

gareth170 said:
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

easyrider · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:55

Final8y said:
Seeing as you dont understand that analogies do not have to come from the same field ill just snip that from the quote.
There are lot of examples that contradicted that and features that fits ones needs do come into it whether you want to accept that or not.

End of.

Not when it comes to speed...either one is faster or it's gotta be cheaper..

That's why 8 core AMD CPUs are so cheap...

Bonjour · 27 Jun 2015 at 11:58

Different people have different priorities, often changing according to current GPUs available.

If your primary concern is raw speed, that's cool. It makes sense with graphics cards. It's not everyone's sole and primary priority, though.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:07

gareth170 said:
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.

Final8y · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:11

easyrider said:
Not when it comes to speed...either one is faster or it's gotta be cheaper..

That's why 8 core AMD CPUs are so cheap...

But speed is not the only factor when it comes to gfx card hence why there is not a single offering currently available from NV or AMD that i would buy.

And i thought that we were talking about gfx cards and no other examples were allowed by your rules

gareth170 · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:14

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It's not so clear cut as it appears both AMD and Nvidia support specific DX12 features better than each other.

but NV 900 series as feature level 12.1.. why didn't fury x as amd promised?

Final8y · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:16

gareth170 said:
but NV 900 series as feature level 12.1.. why didn't fury x as amd promised?

I get the feeling that the current cards are a stop gap.

JediFragger · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:18

Final8y said:
I get the feeling that the current cards are a stop gap.

Fiji is just a test-run before the big boys show up :cool:

RavenXXX2 · 27 Jun 2015 at 12:19

OK the fury is not as fast as the ti and overclocking looks to be poor, its still got that aio.

Competitor rules

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

Official OcUK Fury X Review Thread