• 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 Unigine Valley Leaderboard**

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

I'm getting closer, what are your voltage settings on you CPU to get to 4.9?

voltage_zpsetbyyewn.png
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,321
Location
Essex innit!
Not quite as fast as my Titan


A little diappointed in that score really and I was expecting the 4096 cores to excel in this. Still, it is the fastest Fury X in this bench :cool:

3930K @ 4.4 - Fury X at 1120/550 - 15.20 drivers - Windows 8.1
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

Could someone else with a Fury X run this please? I would like to see if my score is ok or not as it looks really quite low in comparison to others.

Maximum PC's review of the Fury x suggests a score of around 3200 should be about right (77fps'ish), so you're certainly in the ballpark.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2015
Posts
886
Location
Sheffield.
Currently the lowest 980Ti, and proud!... Not really though.

5cYxmSa.png

3943 score, GTX 980Ti @ 1560MHz/2000MHz, 353.49 drivers.

i5-3450 @ 3.5GHz

I think my CPU is the problem here..

Edit: I'm a little confused. My GPU-Z reads 1560MHz core (+181MHz in Afterburner) but Valley reads 1725MHz?

Edit again: Decided to do 2160p, same speeds as above. Score: 1345.

iVRo1.png
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,949
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Why is your Fury X score so low? I would have expected a lot higher.
Its 15% higher than a similar clocked 290X, fifteen percent. with 45% more Shaders and 60% more memory bandwidth

If you asked other Fury-X owners to post a result i suspect it will be the same, its not just this, Fury-X averages less than 20% better @ 1440P than a Hawaii XT in Games, something just isn't right with it.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2015
Posts
886
Location
Sheffield.
I'm utterly confused by the card. I heard so many great things but it turns out it was just babble.. Unless there is some fundamental flaw in the drivers, I just don't understand it.

Could you add my scores above to the OP too, please? :)
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,949
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Currently the lowest 980Ti, and proud!... Not really though.

5cYxmSa.png

3943 score, GTX 980Ti @ 1560MHz/2000MHz, 353.49 drivers.

i5-3450 @ 3.5GHz

I think my CPU is the problem here..

Edit: I'm a little confused. My GPU-Z reads 1560MHz core (+181MHz in Afterburner) but Valley reads 1725MHz?

Edit again: Decided to do 2160p, same speeds as above. Score: 1345.

iVRo1.png

This is CPU heavy, ignore the OSD in heaven, with Nvidia it reads the clocks wrong and with AMD it seems to think its hotter than the Sun, literally reads about a million degrees.

And well done on your 4K score, Kaap has just hung himself.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Posts
30,131
Location
Dormanstown.
Its 15% higher than a similar clocked 290X, fifteen percent. with 45% more Shaders and 60% more memory bandwidth

If you asked other Fury-X owners to post a result i suspect it will be the same, its not just this, Fury-X averages less than 20% better @ 1440P than a Hawaii XT in Games, something just isn't right with it.

If that genuinely was the case, why would AMD launch it as it is?
It's got problems (None performance related), yet they launched, without stock, so it's not like delaying it would have hurt them.

Maybe it will get better, maybe it won't. But so far I'm completely disappointed in AMD's 2015 offerings. First time I've basically never gone for a launch since I've been an enthusiast.
 
Back
Top Bottom