• 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.

The Fury(X) Fiji Owners Thread

jjgreenwood said:
I would be especially tempted to do this if my company had financial problems and I needed a fast result. If I could only make so many of these gpu's then I would only send a few to other places, especially places where people seem to slate them because there is a gpu 10% more expensive that performs mostly the same, except louder and hotter, unless you go through a process of using software to make it perform better.
Click to expand...

The 980s way cheaper than the FX, its only £380, the FX is £530+, even the way faster 980 Ti is cheaper, thats only £500 :confused:
 
Last edited:
uksoldierboy said:
Benchmarks? Links? Etc etc, I'm not defending the fury x through being a fanboy, I had them all, but I've not seen anything that shows the 980ti's being SIGNIFICANTLY faster than a FURY X and a decent res.
Click to expand...

Just pick any review at 1440p and it will show the 3rd party Ti's as significantly faster.
 
chroniclard said:
Just pick any review at 1440p and it will show the 3rd party Ti's as significantly faster.
Click to expand...

or read back through these forums, when the FXs reviews came out, as plenty of 'experts' were reporting on it here too, and still are, the FX is competing with the 980, which the Ti is around 30%+ faster than, as its around TX performance.
 
Last edited:
uksoldierboy said:
980ti isn't significantly faster, faster overclocked yes, but then we haven't seen what Fury x can do with unlocked voltage.
Click to expand...

They are faster, not much in it at 4K with some wins some loses but def at 1080P. I've used both. But one could argue that it's fast enough for 1080P and really shines at higher resolution where the type of buyer that's want really high end card might have a higher than 1080P screen. Still there are plenty of 1080P gamers and I do think right now Nvidia are the better option for that res.

Voltage / driver updates and custom BIOS might add a lot to Fury but when is anyone's guess.

Fury's are nice cards, but Nvidia's are just a little better. At current pricing it's hard to recommend AMD over Nvidia, but price drop could change everything. Just a shame that pricing and availability aren't great at launch as it has made it less interesting. I think going forward these cards could be really popular, with pricing and maybe game bundles sweetening the deal.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
or read back through these forums, when the FXs reviews came out, as plenty of 'experts' were reporting on it here too, and still are, the FX is competing with the 980, which the Ti is around 30%+ faster than, as its around TX performance.
Click to expand...

Two review picked from the top of Google search show the FX at 1440P is only about 5% slower in some games and about the same bit faster in others. This is with a stock 980Ti so add another 10-15% for an overlocked one and we get a 980Ti OC being about 15-20% faster than a stock FX. At 4K the difference is about 1-3%.

I'm not sure if that is 'significantly faster' since the FX can make up some of the margin if its overclocked too. If and when voltage is unlocked the gap may be significantly closed.
If you are looking at 1080P then the 980Ti is faster by a bigger margin but unless you are playing with vsync off it's not a big deal since a FX can easily run games at over 60fps too.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,review-33235.html


http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/
 
Last edited:
Boomstick777 said:
They are faster, not much in it at 4K with some wins some loses but def at 1080P. I've used both. But one could argue that it's fast enough for 1080P and really shines at higher resolution where the type of buyer that's want really high end card might have a higher than 1080P screen. Still there are plenty of 1080P gamers and I do think right now Nvidia are the better option for that res.

Voltage / driver updates and custom BIOS might add a lot to Fury but when is anyone's guess.

Fury's are nice cards, but Nvidia's are just a little better. At current pricing it's hard to recommend AMD over Nvidia, but price drop could change everything. Just a shame that pricing and availability aren't great at launch as it has made it less interesting. I think going forward these cards could be really popular, with pricing and maybe game bundles sweetening the deal.
Click to expand...

Agreed boom, I'm like you bud, there's no fanboy crap with me, at 1080p in some/most games the ti does pull away, but as a blanket statement saying the Ti is significantly faster than a fury x is a load of crap, especially that it completes with the 980, I've had 2, the fury x is much faster.
both are fantastic cards and if agree as a package, the Ti is where your money should be going, at least at the moment.
But make no mistake, the fury x does compete and beat the Ti as the resolution climbs.

What's destroyed this launch for amd, as you already mentioned is availability and pricing, with a bit of luck these issues with get sorted ASAP, voltage control and its game time!.

TL-DR : TI is a fantastic card, so is the furyx, AMD PR team are thicker than whale omelette.
 
fs123 said:
Two review picked from the top of Google search show the FX at 1440P is only about 5% slower in some games and about the same bit faster in others. This is with a stock 980Ti so add another 10-15% for an overlocked one and we get a 980Ti OC being about 15-20% faster than a stock FX. At 4K the difference is about 1-3%.

I'm not sure if that is 'significantly faster' since the FX can make up some of the margin if its overclocked too. If and when voltage is unlocked the gap may be significantly closed.
If you are looking at 1080P then the 980Ti is faster by a bigger margin but unless you are playing with vsync off it's not a big deal since a FX can easily run games at over 60fps too.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,review-33235.html


http://www.techspot.com/review/1024-and-radeon-r9-fury-x/
Click to expand...

translate that into fps instead of % and you find a diminishing return of your money. benchmarks pretty much dont show you what your gaming experience is going to be and such tests as they are done today needs to be changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom