Radeon FURY thread

JediFragger · 9 Jul 2015 at 23:19

Ahhhhhhhhh 1pm, our new time for disappointment

Boomstick777 · 9 Jul 2015 at 23:37

JediFragger said:
Ahhhhhhhhh 1pm, our new time for disappointment

elmuzzy66. · 9 Jul 2015 at 23:42

JediFragger said:
Ahhhhhhhhh 1pm, our new time for disappointment

3rd time's a charm.

bru · 10 Jul 2015 at 00:48

Are we expecting any stock at all or just another paper launch pre-order fest?

siriq111 · 10 Jul 2015 at 00:59

AMDJoe said:
Whilst I could not agree more, this is a forum of enthusiasts that are after the very best. You guys know your stuff (amended from a swear word ) and that's really funking impressive! I can't wait for the reviews to come and see what you have to say! Minus the fanboy garbage of course

Pls don't get me wrong but leave those emotions out completely. Matt was kinda alright but pls take a step into he's shoe.
I do own AMD vga as well.

JediFragger · 10 Jul 2015 at 01:11

AMDJoe said:
Whilst I could not agree more, this is a forum of enthusiasts that are after the very best. You guys know your stuff (amended from a swear word ) and that's really funking impressive! I can't wait for the reviews to come and see what you have to say! Minus the fanboy garbage of course

As enthusiasts, I'm sure you'll agree that this is nothing more than a test-run for AMD and 14/16nm is where the real shizzle will be at

Looking forward to 2H '16

Final8y · 10 Jul 2015 at 06:03

humbug said:
With VSR i don't know why anyone would want to run 1080P with a capable GPU.

Hell mostly i run 1440P, if i had a Fury-X i would probably run 1800P, its far more at home at that sort of res anyway, just as the 290 is far more at home at 1440P than it is at 1080P

I use 1800p and 1440p on my 1080p plasma and depending on the game it can look better than the in game AA, when it comes to GTA 5 1800p and 1440p is way better than the ingame AA.

Final8y · 10 Jul 2015 at 06:09

nashathedog said:
I prefer to use vsr and run games at 1440 on my 1080p monitor however there is a lot of games that vsr does not work with.

Not come across a game that does not work yet.

But there are some games where you need to set the desktop to the VSR resolution first as the game will take the desktop as max resolution as the assumption is users run there desktop resolution native and native is max resolution.

AthlonXP1800 · 10 Jul 2015 at 07:19

http://videocardz.com/57177/amd-radeon-r9-fury-launches-tomorrow

$549 around £430 inc VAT

Boomstick777 · 10 Jul 2015 at 08:02

Boomstick777 · 10 Jul 2015 at 08:26

The ASUS Fury looks awesome, custom PCB. Decent cooling. Plz be a decent price !

humbug · 10 Jul 2015 at 08:38

That does look nice ^^^

AthlonXP1800 said:
http://videocardz.com/57177/amd-radeon-r9-fury-launches-tomorrow

$549 around £430 inc VAT

Close, Fury-X is £530, Fury is $100 cheaper, about £70, so £460 is my bet.

ICDP · 10 Jul 2015 at 08:48

humbug said:
That does look nice ^^^

Close, Fury-X is £530, Fury is $100 cheaper, about £70, so £460 is my bet.

Fury X is £509, not £530. I expect Fury to be slightly faster than GTX980, so about £420 would be the most they can charge. Any more than that then AMD are obviously on drugs.

Fury X already has performance between 980 and 980Ti at most popular resolutions. Fury will be trading blows with 980, slightly better at best with higher power consumption. If they price it at £460 it will be a monumental failure IMHO. Basically 980 performance for 20% more cost.

DAnDan · 10 Jul 2015 at 08:49

humbug said:
That does look nice ^^^

Close, Fury-X is £530, Fury is $100 cheaper, about £70, so £460 is my bet.

At that price it had better be damn fast! Honestly to get me to buy it at £460 it would need to be pretty much FuryX speed, which there's no chance it will be if it is the cut-down chip we've been hearing about.

With 980Tis fairly easy to get hold of at £500, it needs to give people a reason not to just spend the extra and get one of those. If the performance is a fair bit better than a standard 980 then £400 sounds reasonable?

ICDP said:
Fury X is £509, not £530. I expect Fury to be slightly faster than GTX980, so about £420 would be the most they can charge. Any more than that then AMD are obviously on drugs.

Fury X already has performance between 980 and 980Ti at most popular resolutions. Fury will be trading blows with 980, slightly better at best with higher power consumption. If they price it at £460 it will be a monumental failure IMHO. Basically 980 performance for 20% more cost.

With 980s available around £350, then if the Fury is only trading blows with it it cant really afford to be priced any higher than £350 for it to make sense, to me at least.

humbug · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:02

Its would be embarrassing given that the R9 390x is on par with the GTX 980 at 1440P ^^^^

ICDP said:
Fury X is £509, not £530. I expect Fury to be slightly faster than GTX980, so about £420 would be the most they can charge. Any more than that then AMD are obviously on drugs.

Fury X already has performance between 980 and 980Ti at most popular resolutions. Fury will be trading blows with 980, slightly better at best with higher power consumption. If they price it at £460 it will be a monumental failure IMHO. Basically 980 performance for 20% more cost.

I'm going from prices here, don't want to get slapped for competitor price naming, didn't know they were cheaper else where, i usually just look here, i trust these guys.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&subid=3068

ICDP · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:03

DAnDan said:
At that price it had better be damn fast! Honestly to get me to buy it at £460 it would need to be pretty much FuryX speed, which there's no chance it will be if it is the cut-down chip we've been hearing about.

With 980Tis fairly easy to get hold of at £500, it needs to give people a reason not to just spend the extra and get one of those. If the performance is a fair bit better than a standard 980 then £400 sounds reasonable?

With 980s available around £350, then if the Fury is only trading blows with it it cant really afford to be priced any higher than £350 for it to make sense, to me at least.

Let's be logical about it, here is what we 100% know as facts.

Fury is a cutdown Fury X, so it will be slower.
Fury X performs between 980 and 980 Ti at popular resolutions (1080p or 1440p).
Fury does not have the AIO watercooler, so will be much cheaper to manufacture.
390X is ~£330 and Fury X is £509 (MSRP). Fury will fall between both for performance and price

With this in mind, expect a GPU that is slightly faster (~10% ) than a GTX980 for a very similar price. I expect ~£400-£420, any more and it will be overpriced compared to the competition IMHO.

DAnDan · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:20

ICDP said:
Let's be logical about it, here is what we 100% know as facts.

Fury is a cutdown Fury X, so it will be slower.
Fury X performs between 980 and 980 Ti at popular resolutions (1080p or 1440p).
Fury does not have the AIO watercooler, so will be much cheaper to manufacture.
390X is ~£330 and Fury X is £509 (MSRP). Fury will fall between both for performance and price

With this in mind, expect a GPU that is slightly faster (~10% ) than a GTX980 for a very similar price. I expect ~£400-£420, any more and it will be overpriced compared to the competition IMHO.

That all makes sense, I'd say the price is still a bit on the high side though. 980s can be had at any point for £350 - 380 ish, so the Fury would have to have a fair bit higher performance to justify the extra cost. But, seeing the price that the FuryX came in at relative to the 980Ti, I can definitely see your predictions being true.

We shall find out soon enough though!

ICDP · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:29

humbug said:
Its would be embarrassing given that the R9 390x is on par with the GTX 980 at 1440P ^^^^

I'm going from prices here, don't want to get slapped for competitor price naming, didn't know they were cheaper else where, i usually just look here, i trust these guys.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&subid=3068

390X is not on power with a GTX 980 at 1440p, it comes close but not equal as you claim.. Factor in the OC ability of both and the 980 is a better option at 1440p. This is why the 980 is still £40 - £50 more expensive, because it is faster overall.

980Ti is ~30% faster than 980 at 1440p
Fury X is ~10%+ slower than 980Ti at 1440p.
Spec put Fury at potentially 10% slower than Fury X. Or 20%+ slower than 980Ti.
Basic maths puts Fury at ~10% (at best) faster than 980.
By this logic AMD simply cannot price Fury any more than 10% more than 980. So ~£420 going by 980 prices. Right between 390X and Fury X MSRP.

Obviously price gouging is not factored in to my basic man maths

Note: I expect Fury to be a great card for the price. It will be slightly faster than a 980 for a similar price. AMD have GPUs that are definitely viable alternatives to the competition. Something that hasn't happened since 290X/290

Boomstick777 · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:34

If Fury comes in @ £399 or under I might consider it. Any higher and GTX 980 Ti would be better option.

I hope AMD price this right at launch. Could be a really good seller. If not I'm sure it will come into it's own later on when pricing settles down just like R9 290 did.

It would be great if AMD could price this aggressively from the start though. Fury X price is ~ GTX 980 Ti, 390 / 390X are really just the same price points. This card could come in strong and clean up.

Your move AMD

RavenXXX2 · 10 Jul 2015 at 09:36

Good seller lol, you need stock to sell for that.