EK-FC R9 Fury X a AMD Radeon R9 FURY (X) Full Cover water block

You're not calling out the bull, you're ranting against people based on the wrong facts. The Ti is not a hot card and no tables have turned.
On the contrary, we find ourselves in the exact situation we were when the 780Ti launched. AMD's top offering is slower. The difference now is that AMD is late to the party and that the Fury X doesn't overclock much, pretty much defeating the whole point of that liquid cooler.

Regarding the buyout, yeah that's something we can agree on. Although I do suppose that before the transitional period and the resulting monopoly we COULD stock up on SLI high-end cards and wait for it to blow over.
It wouldn't be that bad actually. Especially since the companies with the monopoly won't have an incentive to release better products.
Unless they'd be afraid to get smashed to pieces by the competition's offerings. A few years is a hell of a lot time to design a product, even a GPU.

 

Amd seems to be 6 months behind in the GPU party, if they had the fury X when the gtx 980 was released, things would look very different. The fact is that the Fury X is slightly better than the 980ti in complex situations like at 4k. if you look at the scores, you'll notice that the 980Ti is faster when the fps is above 60FPS and it is slower when the fps drops below 40FPS (when you really need performance).

Honestly people... look at the scores... the Fury X is better when it counts. The only reason i got the 980Ti is because i NEED DVI-D for my 120hz 1080p monitor that I use for multiplayer games, my 4k monitor has too much input lag for a competitive situatuion and besides, i actually NEED more than 60FPS as opposed to most people who would be better off with a Fury X.

I am curious to know what the results are for 3dMark FireStrike Ultra with both the cards overclocked with voltage, I have a feeling that a lot of people would be suprised.

 

Better when it counts? It's only comparable at 4K, it gets a beating anything under (1080p,1440p).
It would be an okay card if it was cheaper, but when it costs as much as a 980Ti and doesn't OC as well, it's not a decent card to buy at all.

 

well, unfortunately there are no games that we could run at 1080P that will push these cards hard enough to drop down below 40 fps. I'd really love to see the results of something like that, i would put my money on fury x. Anyhow, i agree about the price, this card should be 600$ max.

 

Imo it should be 550. Except for the performance, the fury x is filled with a bunch of negatives. Need a water cooler, lame oc for water. Uses more power than 980ti, slightly slower, released late compared to faster 980ti and titanx. Slower than Nvidia's second fastest card, appears to be at its near max with stock voltage, needs a $100 adapter for overclock korean monitors, making it 100 more expensive than a 980ti, no hdmi 2.0 iirc. Probably runs hotter if it used the same cooling as nvidia cards. Adding many 980ti are capable of 100Mhz leaving a oc fury x in the dust.

 

It's not a good card right now, no matter how people want to spin it. It would be a good card if it came out before the 980ti or if it cost less than the 980ti. ATM, it's a bad card, beaten by 980ti, poor overclocker, needs water cooling, which makes it awkward for CFX, just 2nd best choice overall in it's bracket. Poor show AMD. I can't see a single positive here, not a single one. 980ti is simply a better card in all respects.

 

^^ Agreed. That s why I went with this card and it is pretty awesome.