Permabanned
Already getting near that 4gb limit in current gen, stands to reason that "4GB of mem is going to hold it back massively in the next few years."
-
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
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 654
Yea I got a BenQ 1440P freesync thats why I want to use this function...
If I want to go 390X CF, which one do you recommend?
Most people say save the money and get a 390 and clock it for the same performance.
Soldato
Yet I'm running a pair of Fury X's at 4k and maxing every game. The only setting I don't use is AA because a) I don't think it's needed, and b) it's not worth the framerate hit. Infact the only article with any creedence showed that 4GB was enough for 1-2 Fury X's without taking a hit. At 3 and 4 way crossfire the 4GB was a huge hit to performance. Can anyone recall the article? I think they were running 3x4k screens for the test, which is craziness but necessary to see where the bottleneck occurs. The Titans scale to 4way without memory being an issue, the Furys suffer past 2way. And there's only maybe 3 people I know of that even have 4 Furys - and I'm pretty sure they don't run greater than 4k, so it's a null issue there.
TL;DR - 4GB only becomes an issue at resolutions greater than 4k on more than 2way crossfired Fury X's.
As above, I'd say get the 390 over the 390X. Better value imho.
Last edited:
Havent found many problems with the Fury X yet, although I have not used it that much as it is meant to end up in an x99 system which is half finished, I am using it at the moment though to test some watercooling parts and it has managed to run heaven benchmark overnight without crashing so I can say that it is definitely stable at stock which is something I guess.
I am having problems with the mobility radeon in my msi laptop though,
when I plug a second screen in via HDMI I cannot control the aspect ratio
of the full screen application, even though 4:3 correctly works on the laptop screen and the monitor is the same resolution, it comes out in 16
:10 aspect on the duplicated second screen ( desktop matches fine though, no underscan )
I am having problems with the mobility radeon in my msi laptop though,
when I plug a second screen in via HDMI I cannot control the aspect ratio
of the full screen application, even though 4:3 correctly works on the laptop screen and the monitor is the same resolution, it comes out in 16
:10 aspect on the duplicated second screen ( desktop matches fine though, no underscan )
This is true in very few cases and then only at 4k, the smart money is very much running 1440p.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,801
Permabanned
At the moment.... Already at or near it's limits on a new card..... Who knows how much upcoming games will use
Soldato
I certainly don't.. But when it's an issue I'll just upgrade. Even if it's only next year, nVidiots have to do it so it's can't be an issue for Fury owners either
Though I'm planning on dropping 4k any going 3440x1440 shortly, so that should buy the Furys a little more time anyway ;D
Soldato
Not come close to going over 4gb on mine yet, Witcher 3 utterly maxed, GTAV etc all at 1440P.
In other news, i moved my second card down a slot from PCI_E 2 to 3, Gpuz now reports the top card @PCI_E 3 x16 and the second @PCI_E x8
I thought a 5820K could only do x8-x8?
In other news, i moved my second card down a slot from PCI_E 2 to 3, Gpuz now reports the top card @PCI_E 3 x16 and the second @PCI_E x8
I thought a 5820K could only do x8-x8?
Permabanned
I certainly don't.. But when it's an issue I'll just upgrade. Even if it's only next year, nVidiots have to do it so it's can't be an issue for Fury owners either
Though I'm planning on dropping 4k any going 3440x1440 shortly, so that should buy the Furys a little more time anyway ;D
Freesync widescreen? Should be awesome with 2 Fury's.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 654
Actually I prefer a Fury than a 390 as it is like a downgrade to my 7990.
Just considering the fact that it may be too hot to CF Fury in the future but the premium to get the Fury X water cooling is a bit too much and only 10% performance gain.
it has 28 lanes so it can do 16 - 8 I guess with 4 left over, but I thought it had to be the same data rate in crossfire. Apparently 8 is enough though,
AMD can work well with only 4x
hum like Battlefront?
4gb is fine as 99% use 4gb or less ram cards today, ever wonder why game developers dont make a game that requires 100gb ram?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,147
Not come close to going over 4gb on mine yet, Witcher 3 utterly maxed, GTAV etc all at 1440P.
In other news, i moved my second card down a slot from PCI_E 2 to 3, Gpuz now reports the top card @PCI_E 3 x16 and the second @PCI_E x8
I thought a 5820K could only do x8-x8?
Your Chip has 28 lanes so some motherboards do 16x 8x 4x from reading around. Yours looks like it's one of them.
Permabanned
hum like Battlefront?
4gb is fine as 99% use 4gb or less ram cards today, ever wonder why game developers dont make a game that requires 100gb ram?
Its fine in the majority of games, today. The only reason its not 6-8gb is because they couldn't do it. Not because 4gb is fine for the future.
It might well be fine for the next few years, then again it might not. You just don't know.
Caporegime
^ Nice one 
Permabanned
Actually I prefer a Fury than a 390 as it is like a downgrade to my 7990.
Just considering the fact that it may be too hot to CF Fury in the future but the premium to get the Fury X water cooling is a bit too much and only 10% performance gain.
Loadsa has a pair of Fury Tri-x's and reports respectable temps. I only have one but from how that is I'd willingly try a second if I could afford it.