well the fury x seems to have vanished from the shelves (cant find one any where) but the Fury is here , my question is should i get one of these it is slightly underpowered compaired to the the X version, also the Xversion has a problem with coil noise and it says no where, on line if you order a x if its v1 or v2 (hate to get on with a noisy cooler) so i cannot really make my mind up was even considering the 980ti but i have a all AMD system and have had ati Cards for the last 10-12 years..
Wait for Skylake and jump to Intel. Something like i7 6700k would boost those 290X's more than going with a single Fury.
From one 290x to one Fury(x) both are kind of decent upgrades. But at this point you may consider Freesync monitor which may prove to be better investment as it will last you long time and prolong time you will use your cards. If you are set for Fury(X), then look at: Size, Cooling solution, Noise. If you have case where you can mount Fury X's radiator way it is meant to, then it is better choice.
Hey, i'm in the same boat as you. I placed an order for both Fury and Fury X to reserve stock but think i'll go for the Fury X. My reasons 1. Watercooled 2. Extra shaders will come in handy later on. For a $100 more i say it's worth it. As for whether you should go for the Ti or Fury is up to your needs. My reasons for the Fury over Ti 1. Better at 4k 2. Eyefinity 3. Performance will get better overtime. 4. I prefer AMD And before anyone says i'm a fan boy i've owned various Nvidia card. Last being 680.
With that cpu I would ditch xfire and get a fury fury x, amd cpus are pretty weak at multi gpu compared to intel. Stick with a strong single gpu until you move to intel.
go for fury x, there's is a big possibility that your amd cpu to shine with dx12, if that won't be the case you will have another option, Zen cpu's which should bring a big boost. So leave your CPU like it is, get FuryX and wait for dx12 result or get en when released.
This^^^ And if you ever head down the road of multi-GPU then the Fury X offers really great scaling in games.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger Scroll down to a table that shows how both an i5 4690k and fx 8350 perform in the dx 12 drawcalls test. AMD cpus are weaker, no matter what dx version you use. Till the zen cpu comes out, you are better off investing in an intel i7 4790k or skylake, than upgrading the gpu. Going for the cpu will cost you about 400 bucks provided you go for a decent mobo, and the cpu costs around 300+, and get around 5-10fps boost in many games. Going for the gpu you will pay around 700, and bundled with that cpu, and you would def. run into a cpu bottleneck. Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler
Since you allready know the performance of two 290x i would say go fury X. I just bought one yesterday (sitting right next to me now waiting to be installed in the evening). I don't expect more performance compared to my 2 r290 non X but i play way too many games that have no crossfire support. In fact pretty much half of my games only work with one gPU wich is why i made this step. What display do you use? I use 3x 108ßp wich is why io really need the GPU power. If you play with one 1440p for example a fury non X might be the wiser choice if budget is taken into consideration.
i have 3 monitors the main is a dell 3415 ,34" curved @3440x 1440 second is a 20" running at 1080p and number thre is a small 18"running @ 1300.720 or summit like that long time since i checked the res
But then with Zen you go back to the single stronk core design. (Unless you don't exactly, that would be interesting to see). As for the actual question: You are giving all that cash already, 100$ for a better card with a nice watercooler on top (and since you'll get the second revision, you won't have any problems either) sounds fair and overall better.
I just bought a FuryX, about 100€ more expensive, yes, but watercooled and little performace gap that could get bigger (hope so) in the future.
Even if it doesn't, it's better than a blower at sending the heat from the card out of the case, quieter, and with much better thermal performance.
Here are a few tests with more powerful processors. http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/...r-nvidia/#diagramm-3dmark-intel-core-i7-4770k DX12/R9 290X/AMD FX8370 – 13.886.275 DX12/R9 290X/Core i5 2500K – 12.786.088 DX12/R9 290X/Core i7 4770K – 17.050.386 2500K and FX8370 have lower scores than 4770K. But both can have good OC. Probably their users will not have reason to complain.
If anyone thinks that current or next generation of GPUs will run at acceptable fps once you put 200,000 draw calls per frame just because this simple non shaded box world does over 60fps at that moment, you should think again. Right now we may get 50k draw calls and driver will choke CPU and not deliver workload to GPU, but if driver can push 100k without choking CPU, it will already be GPU choking due to all that complex shader/pipeline stuff. So 100k per frame, 60fps, ~6,000,000 draw calls per second is enough for current GPU generation. that means even considerably weak CPUs will be able to feed strong GPU. Those CPUs which do 12M draw calls per second will come handy after another 2 generations after 980Ti/Fury X as at that point we double performance. My poor i5-2500k does just over 15M draw calls per second with 15.200.1023.10 driver. If you check that nVidia driver pushes quite less with strong CPU than AMD's driver does with weak one. It matters little, because it is still quite a lot and more than this and next gen will need.
