1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Radeon FURY thread

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by truther, Jul 6, 2015.

  1. N19h7m4r3

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 13, 2008

    Posts: 9,314

    Location: Ireland

    The Fury does well above 1080p, even beats the 980Ti in Far Cry 4, and Metro Last Light.

    It also has better Crossfire scaling than the 980GTX in SLI

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-amd-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-overclocked,4216-4.html


    Fury 1133Mhz vs GTX 980 1517Mhz
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2015
  2. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,610

    Location: North West

    Looking at an outlay of £700 for fury crossfire after selling on the 290x, it aint worth it. Best to double up on the 290.
     
  3. SiDeards73

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 19, 2011

    Posts: 5,776

    Location: Kent

    So much fail :(
     
  4. KillBoY_UK

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 20, 2004

    Posts: 4,045

    Location: Oxford

    I suspect the Fury core yelds them self are not that bad but its the new HBM chips which have the realy bad yelds being brand new tech.
     
  5. DAnDan

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 22, 2008

    Posts: 4,468

    £400 and they could just about be worth it over a standard 980 (unless the rumoured 980 price cuts come in), but much more and people will go either side. Either the 980Ti/FuryX for however much less than £100 more, or save a bit less than £100 and get the 980/390X range.
     
  6. bru

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 21, 2002

    Posts: 7,294

    Location: kent

    Well it cannot be the HBM, if the Fury nonX is in good supply as it uses the same HBM chips the Fury X does. it has to be either the AIO cooler, or the actual full fat Fiji chip. I mean there is no way AMD would hold back fully working chips for use in the Fury nonX, seeing as there has been a shortage of X's. ( well unless they really have lost the plot of course :))
     
  7. Vinno

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 11, 2010

    Posts: 1,166

    I'm kinda at that juncture dandan.

    a 980 isn't really powerful enough for me to justify over £360 on one. So by that logic the Fury isnt fast enough to warrant being over £400. For £100 more I can get a 980ti which is more than fast enough for my needs.

    At £350 I'd snap one of these up, probably. But that's not going to happen.
     
  8. MoodyB

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 12, 2003

    Posts: 3,725

    Location: Motherwell, Scotland

    Checking their webpages never came to mind :D

    Just depends on the price diff between Asus & Sapphire now then.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2015
  9. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,610

    Location: North West

    Not with the 390X doing the rounds at £350.
     
  10. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 33,850

    Sad thing is the 390X nor GTX 980 are a worthwhile upgrade for me with a 290.

    290's released at about £300 2 years ago, i paid £320 for my PCS+, now you can have +10% for £350.

    What a load of old ####!
     
  11. SiDeards73

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 19, 2011

    Posts: 5,776

    Location: Kent

    This is exactly what im feeling Humbug, and the FuryX is hardly inspiring either, although i am tempted to buy the FuryX2 when it comes for a single card 1440p solution, also for VR, will wait it out, worst case is i end up waiting for a die shrink card
     
  12. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 33,850

    Fury None X, overclock my 290 and i'm almost there......
     
  13. nitram100

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 7, 2009

    Posts: 4,372

    Location: London

    GPU market is a bit of a mess at the moment!
     
  14. Martini1991

    Caporegime

    Joined: Sep 18, 2009

    Posts: 28,315

    Location: Dormanstown.

    Must agree with you Humbug, like I say, AMD have completely let me down this year.
    They've done nothing of worth to me since they launched the 290X.
     
  15. Kaapstad

    Man of Honour

    Joined: May 21, 2012

    Posts: 28,448

    Location: Dalek flagship

    The thing I would criticise AMD for with the Fury Pro is they have disabled too many cores and there is too big a gap to the Fury X.

    The difference between the 290P and X is smaller making the pro version more interesting.
     
  16. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 33,850

    I'm going to hold out for 16nm or 20nm or whatever it will be.

    For now i'll spend what i'm saving up on a bigger SSD, CoolerMaster are coming out with a new case soon, apparently it replaces the HAF 912 i have had for too many years and its just what i'm looking for.

    And a new Screen perhaps, that will keep me happy. I just hope my current GPU out lives its warranty for as long as it needs to.
     
  17. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 33,850

    Fiji just isn't performing as well as it should, I said this so many times but its worth saying over and over again. 45% more Shaders, 60% more memory bandwidth, clock for clock at 1440P its 19% faster than Hawaii-XT.

    Whats wrong with it? seriously, overclock a Hawaii-XT and you can't tell them apart.
     
  18. Martini1991

    Caporegime

    Joined: Sep 18, 2009

    Posts: 28,315

    Location: Dormanstown.

    290's 9% less cores, the Fury's 12.5% less. It's not *that* bad.

    I'm more than happy for a pure 12.5% performance difference in the top two tier cards.
     
  19. SiDeards73

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 19, 2011

    Posts: 5,776

    Location: Kent

    Honestly i just cant fathom what possessed AMD to release the Fiji cards as they are, considering what Nvidia done with the Maxwell cards, surely AMD must have known it wouldnt be well received? :(

    DX12 will help us 290 owners as well, i dont even want to buy a new monitor now til i see the next round of cards, as you pretty much lock yourself into a vendor now with monitors, i need to see what Nvidia and AMD bring in 2016.
     
  20. DAnDan

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 22, 2008

    Posts: 4,468

    The Fury/Fury X aren't that bad though? Perhaps a little expensive for the performance they offer, but nowhere near as bad as you're making it out to be?

    The stock issue is the biggest problem with the Fury X, realistically for most people it hasn't launched yet, stock just doesn't exist!