AMD Fury X Owners' Thread

I am seriously tempted to pick up a HP 32q 32 inch monitor that runs at 2560 x 1440 at 60hz. However, I already own a 28 inch 4k Samsung monitor that also runs at 60hz and I am running 2 x Sapphire R9 Furies. The HP one is a Freesync model well my Samsung is not. What do you guys think?

 

Id rather have the 1440p freesync which prolly can oc to 75-80hz.

Once you go freesync, gsync, you cant go back. Freesync was amazing when I had my 290x xfire. Games felt so much smother with vfresync and
sync on then when vsync on and no freesync with crossfire.

 

If so Pick some new Sammie 1440p HDR FS One 399USD 27"

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/11791059
my score with fury x and nitro in x-fire.

I recently reinstalled the second fury out of boredom and it seems BF1 is now working with xfire as of 17.5.1 for me at least.
I love these damn cards. as long as I am getting this performance I have no interest or need to upgrade for a little while, leaving me with plenty of time to save up for a monster Ryzen/Vega setup.

 

nano now, is there a way to reduce the minimum fan speed which is ~1550 RPM?

 

Some Tests: DiRT 4 & Kingdom Come Deliverance Beta

Spoiler

 

Finally, score above 5.2k GPU in TimeSpy (not Maxed and Not Tweaked much)
CAT ReliVe 17.6.1

Spoiler

 

Ok I confess, I don't know what magic AMD have done with the latest drivers, but overclocking my card has become really easy and stable!

Before, if I tried to OC the core clock anywhere past 1080MHz, I'd have a hard time and same with the memory, anywhere past 540MHz and again, hard time, and it also took a fair amount of increased voltage to be stable.

Now, it's a case of undervolting the card and I can reach higher clocks, I've managed to reach 1110MHz core clock (I know it's only a 60MHz bump) and 570MHz on memory, with a -20mv undervolt and it's running really happily.

Here are some bench comparisons with OC and stock settings which clearly show an improvement which is above the 1-2% margin of error:-

Timespy

Spoiler

Firestrike

Spoiler

Still, these cards are far from the overclockers dream we were told they'd be, in some cases it's been a nightmare but now how it appears, it's been the drivers that have been letting down the performance and capability to overclock the cards.

 

Yes, i forgot about this new Driver batch 17.6.1 and .2 are indeed very stable.
Has Better tW, Lower mV and HBM OC better, also is really stable with OC like my other best 16.1.2 WHQL

Now i can touch 1TB/s INT barrier with tMOD+OC ->
Normally HBM with 1.3mV 300MHz INT Timer has ~600GB/s
With tMOD 400MHz INT and 575MHz HBM clock 1.37mV it gets ~970GB/s INT

Those are my calculations based on Latency+Interposer+HBM INT Tek :blunt:

Spoiler

IMO Vega will be 20-30% Faster in 1440p & 4K than Titan Xp
Thats why i will get one around Sept-November for the Future Gaming :kermit:

 

According to the The Tech Report's chart, the Fury X is at 58% absolute performance, and the 1080Ti is at 100%. If we extrapolate Vega as perfectly scaling from the Fury X with no architectural changes (if we clock a Fury X at 1,6GHz), then it goes up to 89% of a 1080Ti.

I could easily suppose that it might have architectural differences that boost it at least 10% and might eventually end up being faster. I don't believe it happening this year, and I can never see it being 30% faster than a Ti or something, unless games really use it or Pascal has a weird bottleneck.

 

Vega is simply power starved people, if rx 580 give you any indication it is that for a small clock boost in the GCN architecture the power consumption increases tremendously. Looking at performance/watt chart from techpowerups, rx480 is at Maxwell efficiency and pascal is 2x the perf/watt of the rx580. That means to reach gtx 1080 performance Vega needs twice the power (400w approximately). So with water cooled Vega you have the option to unlock the power limit and have a nuclear reactor inside your case to get performance between gtx1080 and gtx1080ti.

 

You got some point here
Also you need to remember why nV changed it's Renderer for Tile Based one in Maxwel (from Smartphones, if im right Qualcom has developed this) and it was an success (tW wise)

That's why ATI abandoned whole Screen Renderer for Tile Based one (but it has also some new Tweaks in it's sleeve).
We need to wait 25 days to see.

 

The real question is...will vega attract miners? And is so, will we be able to get our hands on them for reasonable cost?

 

Tile Rasterizers has been around for a long time, a lot longer than smart phones. They don't save that much power - they use it on mobile because every mW matters there, but on desktops the cost of hitting memory is only a few watts. What it does do is increase effective memory bandwidth by decent amount.

Nvidia dynamically turns it on/off in profiles because it actually costs a couple of cycles to use it and certain applications don't gain any benefit from the increased bandwidth.

It's not the magical thing some people make it out to be.

 

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if AMD/ATi never sold off their mobile business to Qualcomm - we'd have probably seen Tile-Based rendering in desktop cards a lot sooner.

 

But then you depend on AMD for per-app tweaking of this. It would be nice if it could be enabled/disabled manually from a profile.

 

15k in 3Dmark ! 1120/569 1.218v +12%POW
17k GPU score (i was testing 17.7.1 before New Relive drops)

Spoiler

 

-> https://twitter.com/Radeon/status/890316169407852552

It is here

 

hell yea!!

and no work Enhanced Sync on fury x :banana:

 

+ we can't OC our Fiji with Custom BIOS ! Great news for us all :bang: <-

But we can OC our HBM !
F.unk tha'humor

Already reverted to 17.7.1

PS. I did not tried Clean Install tho Yet...