I am a bit confused over the cards design. The cheapest versions I have found are the 980Ti and the Fury X both being sold at £509. The stock 980Ti seems to out gun the Fury X at anything other than super high res and with it being stock is far more overclockable. The confusion comes from the AIO cooler. With that thing attached I was expecting the card to have high temps even with the AIO but it's bottom of the table in just about every temp monitor chart (although it doesn't beat my water cooled 980 in any of the charts . So why on earth have they added that AIO? Surely that is quite an added cost to the GPU. Couldn't they have stuck with a typical air cooling system and cut the cost of the GPU, just how much would having it air cooled have risen the overall temps by. If the card cost maybe £60 less due to being air cooled instead of water cooled then it's cost performance would have made a bit more sense but as it is the 980Ti is just a better card in every respect except UHD. Even more confusing is that if the card was highly overclockable THEN the AIO would maybe come in to affect but as one of the folk here said the card seems to be so locked down that it is nigh un overclockable at the moment. Is the AIO just so they could make a really small dinky card that had some serious grunt. I dunno?
Fully agreed. Certainly not. However, it wouldn't be particularly prudent for them to make claims that could be refuted fairly easily with conclusive proof. An example would be running the game with a dedicated PhysX card and seeing if the card is loaded. If so, then they're not being at all upfront about how PhysX is being used. And that also would raise the issue that hardware PhysX is always an off/on feature in the options but they offer no such thing. Lords of the Fallen had that issue initially. I haven't observed any PhysX load on pCARS when I dedicate a card to it so that suggests, to me, that PhysX is always running on the CPU which makes it vendor agnostic.
390X Review 1 : http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-R...597/Tests/Radeon-R9-Fury-X-Test-1162693/2/#a1 Review 2 : http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/6/ OC potential is very small and the card is slower than the stock (GTX980Ti) Everyone seems to get 1450Mhz easily (Gtx980Ti) Great card and a great overclocker. Sad, i hope AMD strikes back with 16nm
Maybe it's me, but common sense tells you why the 980ti and the X came out. They came out to suppress AMD. Now, to expect the Fury X to destroy the 980ti was/is lacking in sense. At most I expected a plus or minus 5% and doing a quick glance at the review that's pretty much what we got. Was it extreme performance? Yes. I can elaborate but people have already made up their mind (all the top cards have extreme performance). Overall, too much was expected and as we (should) know, under no circumstances should you believe they hype. I for one find the performance to be what I expected.
Someone find a Review with non-reference cards ? ...something like this : http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...x_780_test_wersji_niereferencyjnych?page=0,11 that's a fair comparison that shows thet even an old card like GTX780GTX (X3 GIGABYTE GHZ Edi) can easily beat the GTX970 in many games.
I wish the Fury X would pack a bit more of a punch at a lower pricepoint than it's set at to stir the game up a bit. It's still a competitive card, but if given the choice between an established Nvidia product like the 980 Ti and the Fury X with the Ti packing the same punch and even more in many areas with the difference in memory coupled with Nvidia's vs. AMDs driver/software support etc.. it will be more likely that people will go for Nvidia's offering. Especially if you consider that the prices for the Fury X seem to be even higher in many countries than the already exorbitant prices for the 980 Ti. What I'd like to see would be some performance benchmarks and image quality comparisons with the Fury X' 4x and 8x RGSSAA vs. the 980 Ti/Titan X' 4x and 8x SGSSAA modes. RGSSAA looks better, and I wonder if the Fury X can pull ahead of Nvidia's offerings at those top image quality settings performance-wise and how far. After all, AMD's previous card generations were usually able to perform better at these top-end FSAA modes than the competition.
Frametimes Link; http://www.computerbase.de/2015-06/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-test/11/#abschnitt_frametimemessungen I would be very thankfull if someone would find a Review with non-refrence cards. sry for my english.
4 GB of VRAM, 64 ROPS and no HDMO 2.0 support on a card supposedly made for 4K gaming (vs. 6 GB of VRAM, 96 ROPS and HDMI 2.0 support on the GTX 980 Ti) and at the same price point? Are AMD even trying? :3eyes:
I've had GTX 780 GHz Edition and I have GTX 970 G1 now. If you overclock both GTX 970 is 10-15% faster, no question about it while running cooler and quieter.
Seriously at this price point and overclockability? they should have really opted for an aircooled fury x. Not watercooling... it goes to waste there. All that cooling performance for nothing? Pointless man.. waste, maybe aib cards will be better.. but I don't know. 549$ might seem like a much better pricepoint for this card... tbh, seriously. Or maybe even 500$, but then it would have to be an aircooled version, then it would be a real deal killer. Would do its performance a bit more justice.
If you look at the 4k benchmarks in the review, it's clear the 4GB VRAM, 64 ROPS situation doesn't change much compared to the 980Ti. Neither are "4k ready" you need 2 of them
But oh well AMD did not so great. But I've seen them do worse with 6xxx, 2xxx and 3xxx series really. Either everyone had really over the top expectations or something similar.
Hi there! I am really sorry but AMD "did shot on their own foot"... All this time, spec, new HBM, watercooler to this numbers??? Why watercooler with no voltage control? Only 100Mhz of OC??? Quiet 300W power and no HDMI 2.0 or DVI? I sell and use AMD a long time but day after day NVIDIA shows that they have really better products... An OC version of 980TI will BEAT TOO MUCH this card... Sorry again AMD... sell ATI ASAP to someone who really wants to push it forward... Regards from Brazil
