The Fury(X) Fiji Owners Thread

Lokken86 · 18 Jul 2015 at 00:39

RavenXXX2 said:
What's wrong? his opinion not to your liking.

If you have nothing better to do with your time than post every negative thing you can find about the cards then why bother.

980TI is faster. Go to sleep.

JediFragger · 18 Jul 2015 at 00:43

fs123 said:
This review is probably the best for overclocking comparisons...

http://www.adkgamers.com/topic/121011-gtx-980-ti-vs-fury-x-overclocking-showdown/

And those cards tend to clock even higher than out of the box (1480+) :cool:

Ti absolutely mullers the Fury X when you take overclocking into account

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2015 at 00:43

Negative? it's a user review who has first hand experience of the furyx and ti. More than relevant to the thread.

Geeman1979 · 18 Jul 2015 at 00:45

RavenXXX2 said:
What's wrong? his opinion not to your liking.

Unless you're here to kiss the Furry one's arse, begone with you! You're not welcome around this parts.

Lokken86 · 18 Jul 2015 at 00:47

RavenXXX2 said:
Negative? it's a user review who has first hand experience of the furyx and ti. More than relevant to the thread.

Whatever you say im just going to humor you.

dave_beast · 18 Jul 2015 at 08:26

I honestly can't wait until someone figures the voltage on the FX's and they decimate the ti's and possibly the TX.

Of course out of the box over clocked screamer 980ti's are faster than the FX, but with no added voltage most FX's can get 1120mhz and it closes the gap, add some volts and we could see 1200, 1250 or 1300. AB and Trixx devs should speak to AMD tech and get voltage sorted IMO.

chroniclard · 18 Jul 2015 at 08:33

uksoldierboy said:
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.

That last statement is true, rest is garbage though. Ti is a good chunk faster in the majority of cases as can clearly be seen by benchmarks. Not fussed with 4K, neither card is good enough for that(on its own).

Unsure why people are trying to argue otherwise.......

Howling · 18 Jul 2015 at 09:51

chroniclard said:
That last statement is true, rest is garbage though. Ti is a good chunk faster in the majority of cases as can clearly be seen by benchmarks. Not fussed with 4K, neither card is good enough for that(on its own).

Unsure why people are trying to argue otherwise.......

Except his entire post is pretty accurate. The performance difference between Ti and FX at low res isn't what I'd describe "a good chunk," it's pretty marginal if you ask me. Even at 4k it's only marginal, but in AMDs favour this time.

As it stands, I wouldn't recommend anyone not running 4k buy an FX - Ti is just the smarter buy at 1440p and below, as its a single card can run it and has the better performance, however marginal. As things stand at least. Maybe voltage control and better drives will bring the FX up, maybe it won't - no point speculating one way or the other.

Deleted User 234324 · 18 Jul 2015 at 09:57

What is going on with FX stock, they are all showing as overdue, doesn't anyone have a clue as to when they are likely to be back in stock.

chroniclard · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:03

Howling said:
Except his entire post is pretty accurate. The performance difference between Ti and FX at low res isn't what I'd describe "a good chunk," it's pretty marginal if you ask me. Even at 4k it's only marginal, but in AMDs favour this time.

As it stands, I wouldn't recommend anyone not running 4k buy an FX - Ti is just the smarter buy at 1440p and below, as its a single card can run it and has the better performance, however marginal. As things stand at least. Maybe voltage control and better drives will bring the FX up, maybe it won't - no point speculating one way or the other.

Have to agree to disagree, I await voltage unlocks with interest.

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:07

Howling said:
Except his entire post is pretty accurate. The performance difference between Ti and FX at low res isn't what I'd describe "a good chunk," it's pretty marginal if you ask me. Even at 4k it's only marginal, but in AMDs favour this time.

As it stands, I wouldn't recommend anyone not running 4k buy an FX - Ti is just the smarter buy at 1440p and below, as its a single card can run it and has the better performance, however marginal. As things stand at least. Maybe voltage control and better drives will bring the FX up, maybe it won't - no point speculating one way or the other.

Ti is best at all resolutions, the 4gb no matter what some say will top out before the 6gb on the ti. Then you factor in overclocking and then the ti is the clear winner.

Howling · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:11

RavenXXX2 said:
Ti is best at all resolutions, the 4gb no matter what some say will top out before the 6gb on the ti. Then you factor in overclocking and then the ti is the clear winner.

K.

Mtom · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:14

Honestly without pointing on anyone i cannot understand why someone going to a cards topic which he dont likes to bash on it. If i don't like something i don't care about it at all, and don't waste my time looking at it and arguing about how bad it is in my opinion.
But thats just my i waste my time on things i like not the opposite.

Apart from honourable exceptions it seems many nv owners care more about amd bad news than their own bunch.

fs123 · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:29

RavenXXX2 said:
Ti is best at all resolutions, the 4gb no matter what some say will top out before the 6gb on the ti. Then you factor in overclocking and then the ti is the clear winner.

Seems to be a lot of Nvidia sales people in here. Ok we get it, you are winning so any need for the constant sales pitch?
BTW you should thank AMD for the cheaper prices we are seeing for the Ti and other Nvidia cards. It will be sad day when we only have one GPU manufacturer.

pete910 · 18 Jul 2015 at 10:57

Well having looked at AMD's line up, if the rumoured Nano specs are correct. It's a fury x but just down clocked.
I feel that the Nano with a WB would be the best out of the lot! :confused:

Yes/No ?

chroniclard · 18 Jul 2015 at 11:04

Mtom said:
Honestly without pointing on anyone i cannot understand why someone going to a cards topic which he dont likes to bash on it. If i don't like something i don't care about it at all, and don't waste my time looking at it and arguing about how bad it is in my opinion.
But thats just my i waste my time on things i like not the opposite.

Apart from honourable exceptions it seems many nv owners care more about amd bad news than their own bunch.

Except a lot of us are AMD owners objectively discussing the pros and cons of AMD cards.

Meladath · 18 Jul 2015 at 11:07

I love how people **** all over the Fury X because the "980Ti is significantly faster"
Maybe at 1080p yeah those 5 FPS when you are already at 100+ is so significant lmfao.

Play a real res these cards are for, 1440p, then see how "significantly faster" the Ti is. Or play at 4k and take 2 ti's and 2 FX's, then again see how "significantly faster" the Ti is.

Oh even better, compare a FX at stock without voltage unlocking to an aftermarket cooled Ti thats £60 more and is overclocked to its limits.
What a fair comparison!
You people make me laugh.

Don't get me wrong, I am kinda disappointed by the Fury X and Fury too, mostly by pricing, but the people on this forum are ******** all over it as if anyone who buys a fury X is just insane because the Ti is just SO MUCH BETTER

chroniclard · 18 Jul 2015 at 11:10

I am mostly interesting 1440p where a single 3rd party Ti is significantly quicker in the majority of cases.

Will the Fury X every get 3rd party versions and if so will the vendors be able to do anything with it?

Meladath · 18 Jul 2015 at 11:14

chroniclard said:
I am mostly interesting 1440p where a single 3rd party Ti is significantly quicker in the majority of cases.

Will the Fury X every get 3rd party versions and if so will the vendors be able to do anything with it?

http://www.maximumpc.com/gtx-980-ti-vs-fury-x-overclocking-showdown/#page-2

Thats an old test showing a stock and overclocked reference Ti vs stock and overclocked reference Fury X
I wish we had more comparisons but its one of the best around.

It's not a massive difference. Sure its faster, but its also MUCH hotter and louder too.
A 3rd party version would be better in those 3 cases again, but still hotter and louder than the Fury X. Even if they doubled the overclock they got on those tests, you are looking at most like 10 FPS difference between them with the average being more like 5. Hardly a huge increase when you consider the Fury X is not voltage unlocked and runs cooler and quieter, also costs less.

Also to people who scoff at it "Voltage unlocked" is not a hail mary throw, hawaii shows you can get far more performance with more volts. With this cooler you should easily manage 200mv which should allow up to 1250, maybe even more.

chroniclard · 18 Jul 2015 at 11:17

Meladath said:
http://www.maximumpc.com/gtx-980-ti-vs-fury-x-overclocking-showdown/#page-2

It's not a massive difference. Sure its faster, but its also more expensive, hotter and louder too.

Hopefully the difference can be made up if they can ever be overclocked to any degree.

Most of these Ti cards seem to be pretty quiet as well so not sure that is much of an argument.

Temperatures perhaps but imo if cards are well within the thermal limits is anyone bothered if its 50 degrees or 70.