• 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.

Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen my Titan X touch 4GB at 4k in Witcher 3 or GTA 5 yet, admittedly not on the highest settings but on settings that give me playable framerates (bear in mind I have gsync so that is 40+fps in W3 and 50+ in GTA5).

When you consider that plenty of the vram usage would be cached data I think a single Fury X with 4GB will be fine for 4k, 2 or more Fury X I would be concerned with given you will then have the grunt to push vram requirements higher at 4k.
 
Well according to that ^^^^ its faster again that a Titan-X

Martini1991 said:
It's got nothing to do with the VRAM.

Again, how are people going to judge HBM's success? People will praise it, and it could ultimately do nothing.
Click to expand...


My point was with +45% Shaders it actually scaling at less than 5/10, even if you overclock a GDDR5 Hawaii on the CPU you get about 8/10 scaling in 3DMark.

So it has less performance than Hawaii per shader.
 
humbug said:
Well according to that ^^^^ its faster again that a Titan-X




My point was with +45% Shaders it actually scaling at less than 5/10, even if you overclock a GDDR5 Hawaii on the CPU you get about 8/10 scaling in 3DMark.

So it has less performance than Hawaii per shader.
Click to expand...

Firestrike is not strong on AMD cards, i wouldn't judge on that..also both side optimizes drivers for it continuously so thats ok for an early score i think...TX performance out of the box.
 
Mtom said:
Firestrike is not strong on AMD cards, i wouldn't judge on that..also both side optimizes drivers for it continuously so thats ok for an early score i think...TX performance out of the box.
Click to expand...

I think it was a mistake looking in Kaaps Benchmark thread, even the slowest stock or near stock cards all perform somewhat higher than these results....

The slide where these came from has the TX and Fury-X neck and neck, that would put it around 40+% faster than the 290X

edit: http://videocardz.com/56225/amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-performance
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
and were back to faster than a TX, don't blink guys, you'll miss it! :D:D:D
Click to expand...

-lQi9t.gif
 
Mtom said:
Firestrike is not strong on AMD cards, i wouldn't judge on that..also both side optimizes drivers for it continuously so thats ok for an early score i think...TX performance out of the box.
Click to expand...

drivers written for stability first then performance and no idea how long they had cards to do that.
Faster more advanced at least amd didnt drop the ball...:D
 
Bonjour said:
This thread is like, a roller coaster baby baby. I wanna ride..
Click to expand...

Yea getting annoying now tho. It's just a gtx980! Oh wait it's 15% faster than Titanx, hold on no it's only 20% faster than a 290x, but hang on my system gets this score in that test, wtf, hbm does nothing, it's not in the official database!! hallelujah Titan x killer!
 
Was read on many forums, alots were not impressed with Fury X performance neck to neck with Titan X, Fury expected to be 10% slower than Fury X so it put Fury at GTX 980 OC level but lots of owners overclocked it to 1.4 and 1.5GHz core. AMD will have huge challenge to sell Fury and Fury X cards with same performance as 980 Ti and Titan X, many people will be glad to keep GTX 980 with monster 1.5GHz core that is faster than Fury and others will sell it cheap second hand when they upgrade it to 980 Ti. Both GTX 980 and 980 Ti are very attractive products and prices now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom