Already got it, but my decent PC is 200 miles away. Will be fitting on the 11th/12th, benches to follow. I hope the Fury OCed is faster than 7970 Xfire, we shall see in due course, good sir.
Must admit I am quite tempted to sell my R9 290X Gaming and get one of those Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X cards. Seems like a really nice choice you made there BLEH! I honestly have some issues with my card overheating in more stressful games and thermal throttling. That and the 100% speed fans get to be noisy and disappointing.... I have really quite good air flow in my Enthoo Primo case - whose airflow I have tweaked quite a bit to improve poor judgement in standard case airflow design. Just MSI tried to make this cards cooler too small.
Well... most of us would Like the X, but a "good" few of us would go with a Pro which is easier to fit into our lives, cheaper all in and Almost as good as the real deal ~_^
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1521?vs=1442 Regular fury oc is not much faster than a stock 980. An oc 980 can probably match that, I would go with the fury x.
Bench was at 1440p and 4k, not recommending the 980 just pointing out similar fps, you might be able to unlock some of the shaders on the fury though they are not laser cut from what I read.
What I find odd in that bench is the 980 wins in every minimum FPS bench. A driver issue? Both cards are 4GB so it shouldn't be a bottleneck. BTW Bleh! If you are going to get a Fiji get the pro and cross your fingers that it unlocks. The Fiji XT is overpriced. And a custom 980 is not louder than a Fury (non X).
Missed the part where he already has the fury but it but hasn't installed it, curious to see if some or all shaders are unlockable.
Why don't you upgrade your motherboard and CPU and hold on to the GPU's until the FuryX2 comes out? I recently built a skylake rig and kept my 7990 from a 2600k@4.6GHz set up. Prior to this I was averaging 120fps on 1920x1080 medium settings with BF4. Now, i am pushing 120fps 2560x1440 on ultra. I was a little shocked when I witnessed this. From what I have read, there were not massive improvements with skylake, but from what I have seen first hand, I am kind of thinking otherwise, especially on older set ups.
I was able to avg 120fps with 2 overclocked Hd 7950s @ 1920x1080 high settings with an i7 950 @ 4.1ghz. Something was not right with your setup. Hell I avg 100fps high settings @ 3440x1440 with 670 sli and an i7 3820 @ 4.5. 3820 is a slightly better 2600k.
Those comparisons are not noteworthy unless you 2 are running the exact same settings. Resolution slider, aa, hbao etc.
980 wins even at that res once both are overclocked due to the fact the fury isnt a great overclocker while the 980 is.
They are quite compareable. OCed 7950s equal a 7990. We are not going for 100% exact comparison though. His 2600k setup should obliterate my i7 950 setup I had in BF4. AND gtx 670 sli is nearly identical to HD 7950 crossfire. Its not that far off comparison.
Not really, whats the resolution slider at for you and the other guy, that makes a phenominal difference in fps.
I think the minimum framerates are due to inadequate drivers by amd really since that is the front which would be affected a lot same goes for upper range in lower resolutions. Tbh Fury is a great buy instead of a 980 both oc'd to maximum(which for the fury is not a lot I think here too clocking the ram is a better choice then core) the fury should in normal cases win.
I have the Fury and love the card. It's virtually silent and runs cool. My temps never go above 60. I have set a custom profile for the fan as it's been reported that the Sapphire TriX fans actually switches off and spins up when needs be.