(RUMOUR) Computex: AMD Fiji aka Fury X slower than GeForce GTX 980 Ti

Source :- http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/news/hardware/vgacards/35572-computex-amd-fiji-aka-fury-x-slower-than-geforce-gtx-980-ti.html

Id take with salt, as AMD aren't showing Fiji at Computex.

 

I think when all is said and done it's going to be faster than the 980Ti but only in 4K games.

I think that Nvidia knew that Fiji could only be so fast given the limitations of 28nm and that they priced/designed the 250w Titan X accordingly. It seemed strange to me that Nvidia would release the Titan X at the clock speeds they did when the rumors of Fiji's exaggerated performance were in full circulation. They could have easily made the Titan X a 300w or even higher card but they didn't.

What seems weird to me is that based on this rumor AMD still doesn't have the final specifications of the card buttoned up. I would think by now most of it would be finalized with the launch coming within a few weeks? Then again this entire thing can be BS like the rest of the leaks that have been coming out recently.

 

So, guy who has in hand card which AMD did not gave him BIOS to, knows anything about performance...

Looks like AMD actually know how to ensure NDA. Guy could have brick in hand, would not change a thing.

 

how in the actual ****

So... let me get this straight... you can't power on the card as no bios exists, and the vendor showing it did not have one... but he knows that its performance is less then the 980Ti? WTF??

 

Obviously his hand powered up the card via sheer will long enough for him to benchmark it.

But seriously, it does say the partner informed him of the performance. So while it's still probably bull****, that's where he claims got the info from on performance.

 

Again, the installed memory was confirmed to have a capacity of 4 GB. Clock speeds of GPU and memory were sadly not betrayed. The cards also can't run in their current form, as no BIOS is present. It can therefore only be switched on, but no image will appear on a screen.

so confusing

 

Yeah but it says

"The partner did hint at the performance. Apparently the Radeon Fury X ought to be slower than the GeForce GTX 980 Ti. Currently, AMD is still trying to optimize higher clock rates and is making adjustments to the driver's performance. Performance related to power consumption is therefore likely to be a critical issue for "Fiji".

Which to me means that whoever showed him this card, knows it's performance, and that person is the one saying its slower then a 980 Ti. I'm assuming if this "partner" has the card, he has tested it with a working bios, or knows of AMD's performance goal for the card or something.

Again I'm not saying that this is true or the author of this article isn't an idiot. I'm just saying that his claim comes from the person who let him see the card. Who if this person did exist -- I would think if he had a card he'd know what the general performance of it is.

 

Article shows that even person which sourced card was not sure even about name. Maybe he had OLD & DEAD ES.

And as I wrote, he could as well show brick. And spit sand.

 

Or everything he said could be true. We don't know. This is a rumor and should be treated as such. Getting all bent out of sorts trying to discredit something that calls it's own credibility into question from the start is asinine. Just chill and wait for E3.

 

Calm down, it's just a gfx card. He could be wrong, he could be right

At least he's not like Char-lie, who wrote an article just few hours before official 980 Ti release, and managed to get EVERYTHING wrong for Nth consecutive time :wanker:

 

Exactly what we told you about last year UPDATED
(hahaha)

 

Charlie is a ****ing joke. I'll never forget the 2900XTX articles he wrote claiming he benchmarked the card himself and it was twice as fast as the 8800GTX. Dailytech published results early showing the 2900XTX far below Nvidia and he flipped out claiming they were completely inaccurate and they were purposely spreading misinformation. Then the card launch actually came and the 2900XT/X was garbage and he literally went back and edited/deleted every single article he wrote about it.

The guy is a complete idiot and is wrong probably 95% of the time. Literally just spews trash from every site he works for.


Regardless all these rumor sites are jokes. In the past 6 months Fiji went from a 390x with 8GB of HBM and 20% faster then "Full Titan" to not even being named 390x with probably 4GB of HBM to maybe the performance of a 980 Ti.

They throw out waves of every single performance metric under the sun so that when the card finally launches they can go back and say "hey this one was right! see we were right!". Like yeah if you give a whole swath of performance evaluations and specs obviously one of them is going to be right.

 

Keep in mind the 4 GB of memory is effectively 5 GB, due to the 25 percent reduction of data due to delta colour compression.

 

if this turns out to be similar performance / price to a 980Ti
Why on earth would anyone buy one rather than a 980Ti?

You're stuck with AMDs 6 month driver update schedule, and waiting weeks / months for crossfire profiles (if using multi GPU)

I'll be ditching my 295X2 once Pascal comes out.

 

You are right, I do not even remember when was it last time I used WHQL driver from AMD, since I always sit on betas. Because at time there is m$ WHQL mark on driver, there is already next beta...

 

update

"Our sources close to AMD have reported that any reports of performance issues at this time are pointless."

 

You got a link to that or more bs rumors?

 

Update: Our sources close to AMD have reported that any reports of performance issues at this time are pointless. We have concrete confirmation that the GPU will launch at E3 – so we have something to look forward to very soon and will get a chance to see its final performance as well.

http://wccftech. com / amd - radeon-r9-fury-fiji-xt-gpu-slower-gtx-980-ti/#ixzz3bvTLt9be