The Fury(X) Fiji Owners Thread

[uksoldierboy]

Me too bud, i'm hoping for 1300 on the core, will be happy with that, anything below 1200 is just total crap.

 

[mmj_uk]

They may have originally planned to clock Fury X at 800mhz or so to beat GTX980 but that had to change when 980Ti came out, so they then had to clock it close to the limit to be competitive. I don't think AMD would have expected NVidia to release a card with close to Titan X performance at nearly half the price, NVidia pretty much torpedoed Fury X launch with 980Ti.

 

[Dicehunter]

They may have originally planned to clock Fury X at 800mhz or so to beat GTX980 but that had to change when 980Ti came out, so they then had to clock it close to the limit to be competitive.

With voltage we should expect around 1200 as one of the guys responsible for the over volting tools teased it a while ago.

If I can I'll find and post the link to the video.

 

[JediFragger]

I'm really happy with the cards tbh, they are bonkers powerful and have no problem maxing everything i've played so far at over 60Fps (1440P)

But what's really getting to me is the statement made by AMD that the card is an "Overclockers dream", was one of the main reasons i bought the cards.

It makes no sense to me that if the statement above is true, why isn't AMD trying to push people like Unwinder and Asus with GPUTweak along with unlocking the voltage by supplying a card for him or helping out.

They've just gone quiet and left it, I enjoy using AMD cards, but no more so than Nvidia, at the moment i just feel like i've been lied to by AMD.

I'm personally thinking right now that AMD changed the clocks late on and pushed it as hard as they could to compete with the Ti (hence the **** headroom for tweakers like us), and the 'overclockers dream' statement came before this decision was finalised.

*Plus* AMD may be concerned about users damaging the chips (maybe the core and mem voltage are locked together somehow??) and they've 'had a word'

 

[LoadsaMoney]

If the temps wern't an issue, id have just got another 290X tbh, as still cracking cards.

Not that im saying im regretting get my 2x Furys though, as far from it, im very happy with them, the performance is brutal

 

[LoadsaMoney]

AMD R9 Fury X In Short Supply – Selling For Up To $899, Used Cards For Over $650

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-short-supply/

 

[JediFragger]

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-short-supply/

The demand for the card is evidently still strong

What the hell are they smoking over there!!???

Took OcUK 12 days to sell 8 XFX cards (the only ones available at the time)!!! If that's strong then wtf is Ti???

 

[elmuzzy66.]

What the hell are they smoking over there!!???

Took OcUK 12 days to sell 8 XFX cards (the only ones available at the time)!!! If that's strong then wtf is Ti???

Stunning

 

[nashathedog]

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Cards in 4-way CrossFire at 4K @Tweaktown


http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/7345/amd-radeon-r9-fury-video-cards-way-crossfire-4k/index.html

Please don't take the above review too seriously as both C/F and SLI scale better than what they managed.

Why not? These results show us what we see in a lot of games.
With a second card you get a good boost, Adding a 3rd or 4th tends to be a waste of money. There are games that will use the extra grunt but they are few and far between.

 

[hugin]

Its like u all say 980ti was unexpected

 

[Orangey]

You could see it a mile off.

 

[Kaapstad]

Why not? These results show us what we see in a lot of games.
With a second card you get a good boost, Adding a 3rd or 4th tends to be a waste of money. There are games that will use the extra grunt but they are few and far between.

Because both Matt and myself have done the same benchmarks they used and managed a great deal better.

 

[LtMatt]

Because both Matt and myself have done the same benchmarks they used and managed a great deal better.

After looking at these results I'm thinking about posting some QuadFire scaling results from 1>4 GPU's on a few games that have built in benchmarks for consistency at 4K using near or maximum settings.

 

[nashathedog]

Because both Matt and myself have done the same benchmarks they used and managed a great deal better.

So you're saying there doing something wrong and your set up is scaling properly in games where there's aren't?
It'd be interesting to see your results for the same titles.

Please do some so we can compare them.

 

[LtMatt]

So you're saying there doing something wrong and your set up is scaling properly in games where there's aren't?
It'd be interesting to see your results for the same titles.

The problem is they often use lower image quality settings and a stock cpu, both of which will enforce a cpu bottleneck and severely limit multi gpu scaling. When you have four GPU's you should be using near maximum settings, if not maximum settings to eliminate the cpu bottleneck.

 

[nashathedog]

The problem is they often use lower image quality settings and a stock cpu, both of which will enforce a cpu bottleneck and severely limit multi gpu scaling. When you have four GPU's you should be using near maximum settings, if not maximum settings to eliminate the cpu bottleneck.

As it says in the review there now using a 5960x to eliminate cpu bottlenecking and the games all tell you there settings and they are on ultra settings etc. For example Last Light is on very high settings with AF x16 and very high Tess.

 

[Howling]

With voltage we should expect around 1200 as one of the guys responsible for the over volting tools teased it a while ago.

If I can I'll find and post the link to the video.

Wasn't that dismissed for throttling issues? For some reason the card was throttling with the method they used for voltage control, so it wasn't giving stable clocks or the expected performance at those clocks.. Can't find my source but I'm sure I saw it somewhere :/ That's why it's not gone public afaik despite being shown 2 months back.

 

[andybird123]

As it says in the review there now using a 5960x to eliminate cpu bottlenecking and the games all tell you there settings and they are on ultra settings etc. For example Last Light is on very high settings with AF x16 and very high Tess.

But at stock clocks, matt quite often does 5ghz runs when he's benching 4 cards

 

[nashathedog]

But at stock clocks, matt quite often does 5ghz runs when he's benching 4 cards

So we'll see whether it does make a difference or if a 5960x is still bottlenecking the cards at 4k,

There's been articles recently about how 4k's meant to be less demanding on the cpu so it'll be interesting to see what sort of difference it makes.

 

[LtMatt]

As it says in the review there now using a 5960x to eliminate cpu bottlenecking and the games all tell you there settings and they are on ultra settings etc. For example Last Light is on very high settings with AF x16 and very high Tess.

Look between the lines. In a few of the games they have AA disabled or TressFX off or are not running maximum settings. In addition, why have they got a £800 cpu running at a stock setting of 3.5Ghz? That's not how you bench a 3/4 GPU setup.

Here's what Thief looks like on a QuadFire Fury X setup.

Thief
4K Max Settings
Mantle
4x FuryX @1125/500Mhz
15.15

Spoiler

I could beat their four card score with three cards.


Here's what Shadow Of Mordor looks like. Note, I'm using higher settings than they are.

5960X @4.9Ghz
4x Fury X
15.7.1
Windows 10
2160P

@1050/500Mhz

Spoiler

@1115/500Mhz

Spoiler

I could go on, the Battlefield 4 and Grid Autosport scores are miles off too, but i think you get the point.