• 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

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
a) Fury/X/Nano are terrible overclockers. At best you can get 11% overclock on them. If you use modded bios you can get 1200, but those chips are rare. (AMD Matt has one).

b) @benjii power limit to 100%, power to +24mv MAX and see if you can hit 1140. If not lower the speed. Even my Nano was capable 1140 with the above settings.
VRAM leave it to 550 (1100 effective), you need custom bios for 600.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,543
Location
United Kingdom
a) Fury/X/Nano are terrible overclockers. At best you can get 11% overclock on them. If you use modded bios you can get 1200, but those chips are rare. (AMD Matt has one).

b) @benjii power limit to 100%, power to +24mv MAX and see if you can hit 1140. If not lower the speed. Even my Nano was capable 1140 with the above settings.
VRAM leave it to 550 (1100 effective), you need custom bios for 600.

I'm not using a modded bios, but what you do need to maximise overclocking on Fiji is a low leakage GPU. Once you go past 1.25v you generally start seeing diminishing returns. Both of my Pro Duo's Core 1 GPUs have a default voltage of 1.175v, allowing some voltage headroom for overclocking. :)
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Posts
9,221
Location
Knowhere
I've said it before and still think that the inability to overclock much has something to do with the design of using HBM on the same interposer/block (whatever it's called), I think that's why Nvidia aren't in any rush to put it on there GTX chips which rely on gpu boost to make them shine, We'll see how Vega does with HBM. Personally I don't mind not having much overclocking headroom, I usually buy overclocked models and run them at stock anyway so as long as it has the performance I want out the box that's good enough and I'd give the last year with my Fury an overall rating of 9 out of 10 which was AMD's saving grace for me after the abysmal MSI 290x gaming card I had before that. I've now gone with a freesync panel so I've committed to AMD for the long run and look forward to seeing Vega in action.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,312
Location
Ireland
I've said it before and still think that the inability to overclock much has something to do with the design of using HBM on the same interposer/block (whatever it's called), I think that's why Nvidia aren't in any rush to put it on there GTX chips which rely on gpu boost to make them shine, We'll see how Vega does with HBM. Personally I don't mind not having much overclocking headroom, I usually buy overclocked models and run them at stock anyway so as long as it has the performance I want out the box that's good enough and I'd give the last year with my Fury an overall rating of 9 out of 10 which was AMD's saving grace for me after the abysmal MSI 290x gaming card I had before that. I've now gone with a freesync panel so I've committed to AMD for the long run and look forward to seeing Vega in action.

Moving the ram to a different location wouldn't suddenly make the gpu overclock worse, its not like the 290x had much in the way of headroom either. People are just seeing what 980 ti cards are capable of and seeing amd cards having much less room for core increase. Its already been said that the fury series seemed to be almost pushed to their limits already in terms of core clock out of the box.

Even the hopes of voltage tools increasing this really did nothing =/ If the core had much room to reliably clock higher than its more than likely amd would have upped the default core clocks as it was needed to make up the deficit to the 980ti, but seems "up-to" 1050 was as much as they could reliably get. Though now the card is on par if not a bit faster than the ti.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
26 Apr 2013
Posts
4,829
Location
Plymouth
Thanks Panos and Matt, I'll go at it again later.

I don't think HBM is the culprit, I think it's because AMD have squeezed every ounce of performance out of the 28mn die and the Fury(x), Nano and Duo are at the limit of what's possible, at least for AMD, on 28nm.

I've said it before and still think that the inability to overclock much has something to do with the design of using HBM on the same interposer/block (whatever it's called)
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,312
Location
Ireland
Sapphire Fury x installed and right enough the high pitched "eeeeee" in full chorus. :rolleyes:

Brand new card, seals on the box and the card even has a foil over it so obviously not a return. Well done AMD on sorting out this issue, over a year gone and a fury x purchase is still a 50\50 shot on what you're going to get. :mad::rolleyes:

That's what happens when you flap your gums about the card being premium and use some cheap piece of crap pump, this wasn't an issue on the 295x2 so obviously the best thing to do was cheap out on the pump and suffer a ton of returns.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Posts
2,884
Location
East Lothian
I've tried and failed on numerous occasions to overclock my Fury X. Had the core clock at around 1100 and it would crash playing ROTR and show some pretty hardcore blue artifacts running Firestrike. However I never considered increasing the voltage and after reading AMD Matt's post I checked and my card was running at a default of 1.05v at full load. I've just increased the voltage to +6 Mv using MSI Afterburner and set the core clock to 1110. I seem to have achieved a stable overclock as have just played ROTR without issue and ran Firestrike with no artifacts. The voltage is sitting around 1.15v full load now so likely a bit more room to go further based on Matt's advice regarding 1.25 max but I'll leave that for a rainy day. Also gained 2.7 average FPS on the Deus Ex - MD bench mark and increased the minimum FPS by 1.5. Happy with that! :D
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,543
Location
United Kingdom
I've tried and failed on numerous occasions to overclock my Fury X. Had the core clock at around 1100 and it would crash playing ROTR and show some pretty hardcore blue artifacts running Firestrike. However I never considered increasing the voltage and after reading AMD Matt's post I checked and my card was running at a default of 1.05v at full load. I've just increased the voltage to +6 Mv using MSI Afterburner and set the core clock to 1110. I seem to have achieved a stable overclock as have just played ROTR without issue and ran Firestrike with no artifacts. The voltage is sitting around 1.15v full load now so likely a bit more room to go further based on Matt's advice regarding 1.25 max but I'll leave that for a rainy day. Also gained 2.7 average FPS on the Deus Ex - MD bench mark and increased the minimum FPS by 1.5. Happy with that! :D

Download AIDA64 and install it. Open it, go to View, enable the status bar and in the bottom left corner where it says the Aida version, right click and select video debug, ATI resistors. This will give you a long report and in that report will be your default voltage and clock states. The lower the DPM7 state the better. Of course it still comes down to the lottery, but it should give you more voltage headroom before you hit diminishing returns, or negative scaling.

Here are both GPUs from each of my Pro Duo's.

Pro Duo 1 Core 1:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.95000 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.03100 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.17500 V

Pro Duo 1 Core 2:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.94300 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.18700 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.21800 V

Pro Duo 2 Core 1:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.95000 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.03100 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.17500 V

Pro Duo 2 Core 2:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.94300 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.15000 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.19000 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.22500 V

I would recommend overclocking in 20Mhz steps and increasing voltage two notches (+6v = 1 notch) at a time. Using a simple repeatable benchmark (the original Tomb Raider is perfect) and keep going until you start to lose performance. Find the sweetspot and bobs your uncle.

If you have a good sample with a low DPM7 state voltage then you'll be able to hit 1.275v+ before things go south.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Posts
2,884
Location
East Lothian
Download AIDA64 and install it. Open it, go to View, enable the status bar and in the bottom left corner where it says the Aida version, right click and select video debug, ATI resistors. This will give you a long report and in that report will be your default voltage and clock states. The lower the DPM7 state the better. Of course it still comes down to the lottery, but it should give you more voltage headroom before you hit diminishing returns, or negative scaling.

Here are both GPUs from each of my Pro Duo's.

Pro Duo 1 Core 1:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.95000 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.03100 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.17500 V

Pro Duo 1 Core 2:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.94300 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.18700 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.21800 V

Pro Duo 2 Core 1:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.95000 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.03100 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.14300 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.17500 V

Pro Duo 2 Core 2:

------[ GPU PStates List ]------

DPM0: GPUClock = 300 MHz, VID = 0.90000 V
DPM1: GPUClock = 508 MHz, VID = 0.94300 V
DPM2: GPUClock = 717 MHz, VID = 0.95600 V
DPM3: GPUClock = 874 MHz, VID = 1.06800 V
DPM4: GPUClock = 911 MHz, VID = 1.10600 V
DPM5: GPUClock = 944 MHz, VID = 1.15000 V
DPM6: GPUClock = 974 MHz, VID = 1.19000 V
DPM7: GPUClock = 1000 MHz, VID = 1.22500 V

I would recommend overclocking in 20Mhz steps and increasing voltage two notches (+6v = 1 notch) at a time. Using a simple repeatable benchmark (the original Tomb Raider is perfect) and keep going until you start to lose performance. Find the sweetspot and bobs your uncle.

If you have a good sample with a low DPM7 state voltage then you'll be able to hit 1.275v+ before things go south.

Thanks Matt. I've actually downloaded AIDA64 before and my trial period is expired. I don't have 30 bucks spare to buy a license just now either. I measured my voltage by monitoring the VDDC metric on the sensor tab in GPU-Z whist running a Furmark stress test at a high resolution. This is what was showing the voltage at 1.15 during that test. Is this a similar indiction that AIDA64 would show me or is it completely different? Does this mean I've got a bit more room to push it up to 1.25v?
 
Associate
Joined
23 Nov 2013
Posts
2,358
Location
Manchester
I'm the look out for a Fury X (or two) as I have just acquired a freesync monitor, but I can't find one anywhere in stock that isn't the same price as a GTX 1080. Can anyone point me in the right direction. Thank you
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
9,863
I'm the look out for a Fury X (or two) as I have just acquired a freesync monitor, but I can't find one anywhere in stock that isn't the same price as a GTX 1080. Can anyone point me in the right direction. Thank you

Second hand is your only option if you want less than £500.

AMD are no longer manufacturing the Fury cards, as they were poor sellers due to only having 4GB VRAM (not enough for some 1080P games today, yet alone 1440P).
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,312
Location
Ireland
Second hand is your only option if you want less than £500.

AMD are no longer manufacturing the Fury cards, as they were poor sellers due to only having 4GB VRAM (not enough for some 1080P games today, yet alone 1440P).

:confused:

They're no longer making them as they're over a year old, and how do you know they were "poor sellers"? Fact is the card had issues from day 1, supply and pump noise issues as well as the fact they were overpriced. Doesn't mean to say they were poor sellers once supply got better.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2004
Posts
9,733
Location
London
The fact that prices (new and second hand) for the Fury X remain high suggests that demand remains quite strong.

I think the prices are rather inflated, which is what's stopping me getting one (rather than the 4GB VRAM).
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
9,863
:confused:

They're no longer making them as they're over a year old, and how do you know they were "poor sellers"? Fact is the card had issues from day 1, supply and pump noise issues as well as the fact they were overpriced. Doesn't mean to say they were poor sellers once supply got better.

They were still the flagship's of AMD's lineup (their highest performance single GPU solution). The fact that they decided to stop selling them tells you that they were not making a profit from them.

Go compare TROH on this FuryX thread to the 1080 or Titan thread. That should show you why AMD are not selling them anymore - NVIDIA can make a cheap card with GDDR5/X and it still runs rings around AMD's 4GB HBM monster.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,312
Location
Ireland
They were still the flagship's of AMD's lineup (their highest performance single GPU solution). The fact that they decided to stop selling them tells you that they were not making a profit from them.

Go compare TROH on this FuryX thread to the 1080 or Titan thread. That should show you why AMD are not selling them anymore - NVIDIA can make a cheap card with GDDR5/X and it still runs rings around AMD's 4GB HBM monster.


The cards are still available to buy new over numerous sites, as is the pro duo. Companies generally only produce gpu's for a certain time before ramping down in production. And what does troh threads prove? A single forum is hardly representative of global sales. We simply don't know how well the card sold, and that's really all there is to it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jul 2003
Posts
30,062
Location
In a house
The Fury X was hardly any faster than the 980 when it came out, but it was £200+ more expensive, and it was smashed off the Ti, which was also cheaper, by about £100/£100+
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom