• 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

I think overall Fury X and asus MG279Q is better than 980Ti and MG279Q if not may cancel my Fury X although its probably been dispatched by now.
 
The hardocp review basically concluded that fury only takes a good lead over the 290x when tessellation is in a game, without that its like 15% or so faster.
 
I have to admit that I'm disappointed with and underwhelmed by what AMD have put out here, especially with the 2 year gap between generations and all the hype. The cooler, however, is unbelievably good and the price is fairly competitive or was fairly competitive before the price drops on the 980 ti.

Hardocp's review is particularly scathing:http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11

With FuryX's 8.6 TFlops of single precision compute and the HBM 4096bit wide bus you would have thought that would count for something, maybe this card will be stronger in future games using new APIs, but I think by that time everyone will have bought Nvidia, unfortunately.
 
Been thinking about what went wrong for AMD here in the run up because this cant be the product they wanted to release in terms of performance. I wonder if what we are seeing is great innovation for hbm and for that i salute them. I think under the bonnet though you have an old core architecture that cant compete. When you look at it they rebranded the gcn core and added more shaders. Hence why the interposer was needed. It isnt really a new gpu die and thats what is hurting amd now. It looks a bit like the bulldozer cpu again. Architecture that didnt compete when launched but then gets a minor tweak and called excavator but still cant compete.

Well done for being first to hbm AMD that is genuine i just wish you had done it with a better gpu core that could perhaps unleash that bandwidth. I would not be surprised if we dont hear how they were let down with the lack of 20nm So the new gpu hbm was meant to get never happened and was delayed for 14nm. So this fury is the stop gap version to not waste the investment in hbm.

Just my thoughts.
 
ltron said:
I have to admit that I'm disappointed with and underwhelmed by what AMD have put out here, especially with the 2 year gap between generations and all the hype. The cooler, however, is unbelievably good and the price is fairly competitive or was fairly competitive before the price drops on the 980 ti.

Hardocp's review is particularly scathing:http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11

With FuryX's 8.6 TFlops of single precision compute you would have thought that would count for something, maybe this card will be stronger in future games using new APIs, but I think by that time everyone will have bought Nvidia, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Tbh I'm hoping that Fury begins to shine in Win10/DX12. We need the competition!!!
 
With everyone saying improvements will come in drivers, well that's a given. But at the same time they're hardly likely to be game changing. Fact is a lot of us were under the impression that amd driver team were focusing more on tuning the fury drivers for the last lot of months, if that is the case then its not saying much for the launch product.
 
ltron said:
I certainly expected it to be closer at lower resolutions, you're talking about quite large differences in some cases.
Click to expand...

Like it has been said many times over and over. AMD drivers have so huge overhead compared to nvidia, that they can't keep up with them on lower resolutions. They simple get cpu bound (or I quess API bound is the proper wording here). Just look at results of Alien Isolation. So badly cpu bottlenecked there.

AMD really needs DX12 in current situation. Or they really have to get those low overhead drivers out.

Nevertheless, I did order Fury X.
 
Dygaza said:
Like it has been said many times over and over. AMD drivers have so huge overhead compared to nvidia, that they can't keep up with them on lower resolutions. They simple get cpu bound (or I quess API bound is the proper wording here). Just look at results of Alien Isolation. So badly cpu bottlenecked there.

AMD really needs DX12 in current situation. Or they really have to get those low overhead drivers out.

Nevertheless, I did order Fury X.
Click to expand...

Yea windows 10 is needed for amd for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom