Why didn't AMD make an air cooled Fury X or allow partners to make them? With the Vulcan patch to Doom, it shows that AMD's focus is starting to work. BTW, I see NE has the XFS Fury X for $399....which is a steal. I wonder if the other partner boards will drop in price. If they were on air, I could see buying one, but really don't want to deal with the radiator. Has anyone seen Fury Nano Vulkan Doom benches?
980ti can already be found at that price and to be honest its a better choice, as well as 1070. Vega will be worth a wait, trust me. I think Nano is lower clocked therefore slightly lower performance, around Fury Pro lvl. There is benchmarks Doom Vulcan at gamegpu you can check.
Some people like to stay on the Red team. Myself, I like quirky hardware. While I bought a GTX 1070, I still did AMD hardware. The Fury is an awesome piece of tech.
Based on what I'm hearing from my fellow Austin peeps -> I'd strongly suggest you hold out for AMD's 490 card. ...Roughly speaking, I think even I'll be upgrading to it from my 290X. On a different note, I love my old ass PC with it's i7-920 CPU, but it is starting to show its age in most open world games
The non-reference Fury models are about on par in speed with the Fury X although when looking at overclocking and such the Fury X in general clocks better due to being made from higher binned chips whereas the Fury has those clusters disabled. As seen with bios editors and viewers for unofficially restoring said clusters the older Fury models generally work better whereas the newer ones seem to be more or less locked (IE the updated Sapphire Tri-X model called Nitro or sometimes Tri-X+ from what I've seen.) unfortunately when I viewed my own GPU the tick marks were in places that likely indicated actual faults so restoring them would most likely not work. Up the voltage a bit via Afterburner and if needed set the fan curve or speed to something a tad more aggressive and you can generally reach 1075 - 1100 on the core clock of the Fury further improving performance by a few more FPS's although not by much and above 1100 it gets progressively tougher to get it stable for minor gains outside of benchmarks. HBM v.1 whatever these are don't clock at all by default and unblocking that via Afterburner generally shows a stop at 525 - 550 Mhz with some slight gains but it won't go much higher at all before becoming unstable outside of some really lucky binned models or how it's called. Once AMD finally fixed the clock fluctuations with the Crimson power-saving stuff and well, this https://community.amd.com/thread/188642 the Fury GPU has been almost problem free in my own experience besides the occasional driver crash in a few problematic games when pushing higher settings such as via downsampling (VSR for D3D11, GeDoSaTo for D3D9) but it's pretty rare though it's there for both AMD and Nvidia GPU's depending on well I don't know, all sorts of factors I assume both hardware and software related and then the OS itself and other potential conflicts such as between various monitor utilities or overlays and whatever else there is, hopefully as we transition over to D3D12 and Vulkan this will also improve once developers become more skilled with using low-level API's and programming for both AMD and Nvidia GPU's via this. (Or one can hope at least, reality could be a bit different.) EDIT: Oh right for a handful of games 4 GB VRAM is really pushing it if you opt for the highest settings at 1080p or above, the slightly slower 390 or new 480 GPU with 8 GB will probably have it easier in such situations but this "bottleneck" or what to call it is not too common (yet) and well it means a upgrade but HBM2 GPU's or well GDDR5 or GDDR5X too really should eliminate that issue as 8GB or above starts to become a bit more common. (I keep seeing 32 GB for HBM2 and that would be cool and all but I guess that's going to cost too heh well it's going to cost regardless being new technology I suppose and depending on performance AMD might position the Vega 11 and Vega 10 GPU's in a higher pricing group than usual.) (I don't fully "get" that either, Polaris 11 is higher-end aka possibly the 480X and Polaris 10 is the somewhat smaller 480 model but for Vega it's reversed and Vega 10 initially coming out is the lower-end possibly 490 and Vega 11 is the top-tier and thus either 490X or some dual-GPU stuff again - I think there were rumors at least. - thus something like a 495) (Well Vega is going to be fast regardless compared to Polaris and possibly compete a bit with the current Pascal GPU models and with no further info well we'll just have to see what AMD announces although some details seem to be set at least.)
I had a 920 C0 model on a Gigabyte X58-UD5 mobo, which killed my 920. The VRM Gigabyte sets up will output higher current than being reported to BIOS, and as such will line condition the CPU. My 920 died after a year, and no I only OC'd for benching, which was not happening often. Intel replaced it and I sold it off. Currently using a 950 D0 @ 3.8 GHz / 1.3v, as I am trying to keep the voltages withing Intel safe spec, and no longer using the Gigabyte. uke2:
Hi there If you are still on X58 then i would suggest X5670 or X5680/5690 CPU those are great upgrades for X58 and you will gsin with better OC and mainly will run lot cooler than 920 or 950 etc Have run X5670 at 4.2GHz and have posted my results over here too and compared my results to i7-5820k OC up to 4.4GHz or E5-2683 v3 with measly 2.6GHz or even i7-4790k OC up to 4.4GHz Over on Overclock.net Kanu-maru running on his Xeon Fury X and he done few tests and benches too Hope this helps Thanks,Jura Hi there Personally I would stay away from Gigabyte,have run Gigabyte UD3R which has failed too and VRM on that board is just joke there But as above I would recommend to upgrade to X5670 or X5680/5690,those CPU are 6 core/12 threads and they OC very well,you can achieve 4.2-4.4GHz at 1.3v maybe less(cooling dependent and chip itself),in my case I've run 1.22-1.25v with 4.2GHz OC Hope this helps Thanks,Jura
My fury X has been troublefree since i bought it on release day. By now it is speeding past the 980ti, a card it lost to at first. I think it is too expensive compared to the 1070 but a nano for 350 is a great deal!
In some games and some benchmark scenarios it will get pretty close to the 980 Ti, Fury X was to compete with that GPU after all and with the improvements with AMD's focus on D3D12/Vulkan and architecture differences it performs pretty well in those areas although the 980Ti is generally faster when it comes to D3D11 and of course OpenGL due to Nvidia's improvements in regards to for example that overhead issue and just having very fast hardware. EDIT: It's going to be really interesting to see what Nvidia's upcoming (bigger?) Pascal GPU models can do and what AMD's actually high-end Polaris models can do and how those then compete against one another. (But that's a few months off at the very least and possibly not until 2017 sometime.)
Why are you in this thread? Do you secretly want a Fury? PS. I love my Fury Here's my Time Spy Score Fury Pro (3864 shaders) Proof http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13343556?
