Not sure what you mean.
-
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.
- Status
Don't even know why I am bothering to reply but I'll bite anyway.....
How is it an irrelevant comparison?
Guy asked what to expect performance wise for vega coming from a fury x....
I give him the 3 most common scenarios.
So as per my last post in this thread, you think AMD are not going to aim to beat their top end GPU which is 2 years old now? Which happens to be already matching/beating a 1 year old "mid range" nvidia GPU....
And didn't someone on here post a few benchmarks showing a fury x with the same speed as vega matching a 1080???
Yup vega will come nowhere close to a 1080ti, let alone a 1080....
Haven't you heard, AMD have decided that instead of releasing gpus that are faster than their previous gen gpus, they are now going to be approaching the GPU sector in a whole new way that blow people away..... They will now be releasing gpus that are not only slower than a 2 year old gpu of theirs but also slower than a 4+ year old GPU. That's how you do business chaps!
As for pricing of the fury x, you do realise the main reason for such a high price was due to the lack of stock and demand? IIRC, on launch day, ocuk barely even had 10 fury x of each brand in stock....
Also, the fury x was released on June 24 2015 to compete with the titan x, which was released on March 17 2015 hence why nvidia quickly released the 980ti on June 2 2015 and as a result the fury x was nowhere as impressive then...... If it weren't for the 980ti, people would have been screaming about how good the fury x was for bang per buck just as people are with their "cheap" 1080ti's now because they are getting "titan" performance for considerably less but I digress....... So how on earth can you even expect a 2+ year old fury x to be compared with a 2/3 month old GPU lol.....
And as said by most people here, they would be happy enough with a 1080 competitor for £100 less than the 1080.
Last edited:
Soldato
Please don't let this thread slide into another multi-page monitor debate like the last thread did! 
Caporegime
Soldato
Um, no. They are different generations. The only thing that should be compared to a FuryX directly is the 980ti, or given that a 1070 is so similar, that as well.
Soldato
What's next mocked up cards held together with wood screws?
Oh you went there...
Associate
who cares really, what does it matter?
ehh, you say you can't compare to a different generate and hen use a different generation Pascal card. make up your mind. The logic of some people on this forum, just wow.
Soldato
Wilful ignorance at its finest. You're a joy mate.
It doesn't, just gives people who want to mindlessly attack AMD ammunition
Soldato
I'm only using a different Pascal card (1070)because it is essentially the same thing as a 980ti. I can definitely understand why the guy compared the two. I can't see why someone compares the Furyx to the 1080 though.
Indeed, it really is pure gold
Because someone linked benchmarks in the last vega thread showing a fury x with the same speeds as vega and as a result, the fury x was then matching a 1080, iirc it was @N19h7m4r3.
Man of Honour
Indeed, it really is pure gold
Because someone linked benchmarks in the last vega thread showing a fury x with the same speeds as vega and as a result, the fury x was then matching a 1080, iirc it was @N19h7m4r3.
There is better than that if you run a 980 Ti at 1080 clocks the older card wins, better still the Kingpin 980 Ti on LN2 v 1080 LN2 always goes to the Maxwell card. When it came to efficiency Pascal was almost a step backwards for NVidia.
Hmm, I wonder why people compare the RX 480 to the GTX 970/980 and R9 390 then. Surely they should compare it with the RX 380 in that case.
Very very few people or reviewers ever did that as well.
Indeed, it really is pure gold
Because someone linked benchmarks in the last vega thread showing a fury x with the same speeds as vega and as a result, the fury x was then matching a 1080, iirc it was @N19h7m4r3.
Yup, there was extreme overclocking results of the Fury X @ 1450Mhz, where in Fire Strike it matched a GTX 1080.
https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-Unlocked-Fury-X-Overclocked-1-GHz-HBM
Vega Frontier Edition is 1600Mhz, so if Vega had no improvements over Fiji, and it was just a plain die shrink with clock speed increase it should still be over the GTX 1080.
Soldato
I said this in the old thread for months, not many seem to actually take it in though. A straight die shrink of Fiji or even a bigger Polaris should beat or match a 1080 comfortably, not including any other optimisations, features and changes.
Associate
It still seems to me that Pascal only seemed to move forward from Maxwell due to clockspeeds alone. Of course a 2000Mhz 1080 will beat a 1300Mhz 980ti.
Which is why, even with this Vega delay, I won't fall prey to buying into the 1000 series cards. No, there are other ways to show my disapproval and lost patience at consumer Vega's late release, ways that involve Nvidia not getting a penny...
Also, I'm shocked that it's been a week since the whole Computex thing and this thread is already at 40 odd pages. I bet it'll be 300+ pages by the time the card actually releases lol.
Soldato
Why the 380? Isn't that just a re re brand of a 7950?
The 380/X was based on the new Tonga architecture ( GCN 1.2 vs Tahiti's 1.0, and Hawaii 1.1 ), and even AMD marketed the 480 as a replacement for 380. Just like the 1060 is a replacement for 960.
Although both were rarely compared to those GPUs, despite the improvements being massive. Instead they were compared to higher end GPUs from the previous generation.
It's why I find it funny D.P suddenly says it's meaningless to compare the Fury X against the 1070 ( or 1070 against 980Ti ), and it should be compared to the 1080Ti, because the 1080Ti replaces the original competitor the 980Ti.
By that same margin people shouldn't then compare the 480 with the 390, which is a higher tier card from the previous gen. Or compare the 1070 to the 980Ti and so on.
Last edited:
- Status