Radeon FURY thread

Roadrunner_668 · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:23

I'll take a look.

flopper · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:33

seems launch is tomorow.
The best line up in graphics just got better.

Duvar · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:37

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-fury-details-exposed/

Fury vs GTX 980 @ 4k high settings benchmark results included.

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:40

Gerard said:
Plenty of reviews would beg to differ.

LI haven't seen a single review to support your or Flopper's blinkered stance.
Chery picking the odd game here and there doesn't make it true.

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:41

Roadrunner_668 said:
So this isnt worth considering versus the 980ti?

It should be a little faster than a regular 980, so if AMD price it right it could be a good competitor to that, but not the Ti.

JediFragger · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:42

Duvar said:
http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-fury-details-exposed/

Fury vs GTX 980 @ 4k high settings benchmark results included.

Hmmmmm, the AMD FX performance 'slide' is still fresh in our memories. Think will wait till proper reviews arrive

LoadsaMoney · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:43

At this point it looks like only Sapphire and ASUS are to release a Fiji Pro based Fury card, I've talked to Gigabyte and they are not planning this SKU. MSI as well will not release one short term, but internally they are still discussing it.

Doesn't sound good.

JediFragger · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:44

D.P. said:
It should be a little faster than a regular 980, so if AMD price it right it could be a good competitor to that, but not the Ti.

980 PRICE-DROP IIIIIIIIINCOMING!!!!

RavenXXX2 · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:46

So same with fury x it does ok at 4k but slower or similar performance at 1440p and it's a dog at 1080p.

I hope they price it right and I bet there is little to no stock

Gerard · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:47

D.P. said:
LI haven't seen a single review to support your or Flopper's blinkered stance.
Chery picking the odd game here and there doesn't make it true.

Coming from the person that wields the word "fanboys" around without a hint of irony that's quite the statement. There's plenty of reviews out there that puts the fury on par with the ti especially at the res I play at which is 4k. I don't consider 2 or 3fps either way a "win or a lose" in any scenario as its within a margin of error and most likely will improve as things more on.

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:48

JediFragger said:
Hmmmmm, the AMD FX performance 'slide' is still fresh in our memories. Think will wait till proper reviews arrive

Indeed, we could take AMD's FuryX performance slide and make the same downward adjustment to the Fury to see a more representative benchmark. Or we could wait until tomorrow.

I expect the Fury to suffer the same issues at resolutions less than 4K , so the Fur could be a good bit faster than a 980 at 4K but neither card are really what you want for that resolution.

LoadsaMoney · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:48

Least the Strix comes with DVI

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:51

Gerard said:
Coming from the person that wields the word "fanboys" around without a hint of irony that's quite the statement. There's plenty of reviews out there that puts the fury on par with the ti especially at the res I play at which is 4k. I don't consider 2 or 3fps either way a "win or a lose" in any scenario as its within a margin of error and most likely will improve as things more on.

The difference is I'm a fan of technology, not companies. AMD and Nvidia are all the same to me. Not joining an AMD circle jerk doesn't make me a Nvidia fanboy.

And you are just plain wrong, the evidence is there in black and white, even now you have shifted the goal post and specified an exact resolution, that just closes the gap.

The FuryX performs well and i am not in the slightest disappointed or surprised by its performance and it does enough to keep Nvidia on its toes, but under no definition can you say the FuryX performs as well as a 980Ti. That is just a lie.

D.P. · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:57

RavenXXX2 said:
So same with fury x it does ok at 4k but slower or similar performance at 1440p and it's a dog at 1080p.

I hope they price it right and I bet there is little to no stock

The GUru3D link seems to sugegst this card will be pretty rare since few vndors seem to be bothing with that SKU.

hoepfuyl that is because the Fury Nano is just way better and so a standard Fury makes no sense.

JediFragger · 9 Jul 2015 at 16:57

D.P. said:
I expect the Fury to suffer the same issues at resolutions less than 4K , so the Fur could be a good bit faster than a 980 at 4K but neither card are really what you want for that resolution.

Hell man, I game at 4k and I wouldn't buy it!! Lack of vRam and any kind of meaningful overclockablility makes it a no-no in my eyes

flopper · 9 Jul 2015 at 17:14

Godlike card for me.
Best in class

JediFragger · 9 Jul 2015 at 17:19

flopper said:
Godlike card for me.
Best in class

Of that we never had any doubt about for you

Maybe buy one to help out the pauper AMD?

Killer7xx · 9 Jul 2015 at 17:24

hmm if this beats the 980 by a decent margin, I'll possibly consider this as my next upgrade. But most likely Nvidia will respond by lowering the price of the 980.

Will Robinson · 9 Jul 2015 at 17:38

AMDJoe said:
Reviews are tomorrow.

Woot!

mmj_uk · 9 Jul 2015 at 17:45

Gerard said:
Coming from the person that wields the word "fanboys" around without a hint of irony that's quite the statement. There's plenty of reviews out there that puts the fury on par with the ti especially at the res I play at which is 4k. I don't consider 2 or 3fps either way a "win or a lose" in any scenario as its within a margin of error and most likely will improve as things more on.

Buying a 4GB card for 4K is not particularly wise long term though, there are already videos floating around with big pauses where paging to main memory is likely occuring.

This for one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hnuj1OZAJs (notice when the first major stutter occurs that VRAM has emptied itself by about 1GB).