Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by truther, Jul 6, 2015.
I think that's the main issue. Supply is non-existent and that only means places are going to gouge the price.
Gouge all they want, everyone will be buying 980ti's anyway, more so if it comes in at £450.
Well the Fury does holds up very well against a 980 clocked 384MhZ faster @ 1517MhZ. This just shows that clock for clock the Fiji architecture is faster. Just imaging a Fury @ 1500MHz . Let's hope voltage unlocking appears soon.
DG Lee MultiGPU scaling tests
Another test showing AMD's better multi-GPU scaling, especially at higher resolutions where AMD's CPU overhead isnt as large. Not even just with the crazy 3/4 GPU builds too! 2 Fury X is faster than 2 Titan X at 4K in the majority of tests. In 3/4 GPU builds NVIDIA only wins in 3/13 tests, being BF4 and Crysis 3 and Thief.
I could go on, but it's total domination for Fury X.
Now imagine drivers + voltage.
I read this earlier and it is quite misleading.
Remember some of these cards are fantastic overclockers and they can also use voltage control.
If you crank up the settings at 2160p there is only going to be one winner as the 4gb and 6gb cards can not handle it 4 up.
The settings are cranked. The 4GB isn't an issue.
That review is total garbage and 4gb is an issue @2160p
Here is proof that they were not using max settings, compare these results from the SEV3 bench to what they got lol.
Another one they really screwed up was the Thief 2160p results, it is one of the few were the Fury X should beat the NVidia cards lol.
Why were they using an i7 5960X @3.5ghz for 4 card setups, epic fail.
That's just listing the specs. He might have OC'd, but I can't read Korean so gleaning any of those kind of details is impossible.
To be fair as mentioned above, stock vs stock is pointless - as it's starting to look like the Fury-X will not be great at over-clocking (namely the dev currently coding it into MSI afterburner), that lead may diminish.
Not really, if you look at the single card specs at the bottom the Fury X is within a percentage of the 980ti.
If you factor in overclock/boost then it's clearly not the case as per every single other review comparing the two cards (the fury X falls behind significantly to an overclocked Titan/980ti).
So they got 71.9 fps in Sniper elite 3 on a single fury at 4k and our very own matt only managed 25.8 in the benchmark thread. (unless I'm reading that wrong, which is quite possible )
Obviously something is not right there.
And only using a stock CPU is ludicrous for 4 card 4K benching. ( just like that other video)
I'm not saying that the Fury series do not scale very well in multi GPU setups but it looks so far as if the test setups have not been maxed out like we would run things and more like setup to give certain results.
It's sad to see how much in denial you are
Look closely at the scores and it is obvious that he did not OC the CPU, there are some terrible bottlenecks. Here is another one that demonstrates both a CPU bottleneck and the fact he was not using max settings.
Hitman scales very well using 1,2,3 or 4 cards @2160p yet look what happened when he ran the bench
He got the same scores for 2,3 and 4 cards lol.
I just ran Hitman on my 4 EVGA SC TXs which even at stock are 11% faster than reference TXs and this is what I got.
He was not using anywhere near max settings for Hitman.
I think the Fury X is a very good card and once I have my 4 up and running with waterblocks I will max them out and test properly with max settings.
The actual cards are needed first.
It is funny how people who don't even own the cards keep putting up benchmarks from various sites to make something they don't even own look good.
Separate names with a comma.