• 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

Dygaza said:
Keep in mind with 390x, that they are reviewed against reference 980's. Where 390's are already custom. Get custom 980 and competition is tighter again.
Click to expand...


Well i was thinking about a 980, if you look at mainstream reviews the 980 looks miles ahead, now with the 390X reviewers have been forced to re test Hawaii and it turns out there is nothing in it.

So i'm keeping mine :)
 
humbug said:
That may even be 15.5 ^^^^



Its only faster than a 980 at 4K, by a cats whisker, none the less a quick card overall at any res snapping at the 980's ankles.

By that measure the 290X would be just as quick clock for clock.

Its possible AMD have had some huge Driver based performance improvements putting Hawaii right up there with the full fat GM204.
Mainstream reviewers just haven't retested Hawaii for some time.

Hawaii is actually quite an impressive bit of GPU these days.

http://s1056.photobucket.com/user/Hunbug76/media/2132112_zpsupyttirv.png.html
Click to expand...

I do recall that the 980 and 970 were criticised 9 months ago for not being a big enough increase in performance. There was annoyance that Nvidia increased efficiency rather than performance.
I can only imagine that the 390X and below are being held in similar contempt?

I'm not even going to speculate about the allegiance (if there was any) of the people that were so annoyed by what the 970/980 offered.
 
humbug said:
Hawaii is actually quite an impressive bit of GPU these days.
Click to expand...

Compared to the 980 it isn't really. It still uses about 80-90 watts more power at full load and runs nearly 10 degrees warmer (using Guru3d's temps for the 390x gaming and 980 gaming cards (same cooler))
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
I do recall that the 980 and 970 were criticised 9 months ago for not being a big enough increase in performance. There was annoyance that Nvidia increased efficiency rather than performance.
I can only imagine that the 390X and below are being held in similar contempt?

I'm not even going to speculate about the allegiance (if there was any) of the people that were so annoyed by what the 970/980 offered.
Click to expand...

I was not one of them, frankly i don't get why some should think power-consumption such a big issue.

We have been running 250 Watt + GPU's for years, it was never a problem then and its not a problem now.

The electric bill argument is completely flawed, it will take a lot of years of heavy use to get £100 back, getting on for a decade.

The heat argument has some merit but only if you have a crap case and don't understand airflow, i run my 290 with a permanent 20% overclock on a custom quiet fan profile and the thing hovers around the high 60's to 70c mark during 2 hours of BF4 in Mantle with V-Sync off.

Efficiency needs to be improved if we are to move forward with GPU's, both Nvidia and AMD are doing that, its all good.

Right now its all just massive hyperbole.

setter said:
Thought you were gonna go for a fury x bug?
Click to expand...

Fury Nano was on my mind but...hum. will see.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Indeed. the Guru 3d review showed a reference 980 being generally faster across the board at 1080p and 1440p when compared with the gaming edition of the 390x.
Click to expand...

The Guru3d review has them pretty close with the Gtx980 shading it. Bare in mind there is already drivers out there faster than the 15.15s used and reportedly there's a 15.30 on the horizon that's supposed to be better again. Things could get rather interesting when the Fury is reviewed if Amd pull all this together. I am looking forward to reaping the benefits on my 290 pcs+.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I was not one of them, frankly i don't get why some should think power-consumption such a big issue.

We have been running 250 Watt + GPU's for years, it was never a problem then and its not a problem now.

The electric bill argument is completely flawed, it will take a lot of years of heavy use to get £100 back, getting on for a decade.
Click to expand...

Took me about 6 months with the my 3 original Titans (custom bios/overvolted)

Now they where power hungry beggars. :D

Never understood why people where worried about power usage - still don't.
 
Silent_Scone said:

Don't expect anything from me till next week though. I've done naught but touch it lol
Click to expand...

Ha nice one. You got a separate PC for it or using it main one? Don't you have Titans?

flopper said:
World news headline tomorow: TitanX owner changed to Fury X, end of the world is near.:D
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah I just fancied a change been on Nvdia for a while. I'm a hardware fanboy like to try the latest stuff :o

I'll likely be back on Nvidia soon as Pascal GP200 comes out. Got a feeling it's going to be an absolute monster.

Fury X can't come close to Titan X in 3D Mark11 bench, I think it fairs better in Firestrike but not Titan X @ 1400+ level, unlikely I'll beat my old score (Here >> http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=27944513&postcount=3) with Fury X, especially without Voltage control / custom BIOS. Never say never though.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
Bare in mind there is already drivers out there faster than the 15.15s used and reportedly there's a 15.30 on the horizon that's supposed to be better again.
Click to expand...

Just a note about 15.30 drivers.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5106854&postcount=354

Ofc this doesn't mean 15.300 series drivers won't be happening in future, but in current situation it's just DmitryKo's quess, they're next in line. AMD's current focus is hard on in 200 series drivers. And they are really looking promising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom