Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 10, 2015.
Yes, if you have 200$ more.
you can get a ti for $100 more according to newegg (or a fury x)
I'm sorry i dont live in US so i must watch prices here in Europe. I though you do to...
I didnt know we have $ here since you stated that
Yeah same price as a fury x in the USA and in stock. No brainer imo.
In the HardOCP review, they state that they used the 15.7 drivers with the Fury review, and are going to re-test the Fury-X on those drivers, because they seemed to boost the Fury pretty close to the Fury-X scores.
Hardware.fr used the 15.7 drivers on both cards.
TechReport used the 15.5beta if their Test system page is up to date.
I installed the 15.7 drivers, and have yet to fully test them, but the general opinion is that they bring a little performance boost in some games.
Where are you getting that information?
Again, another Fury card that isn't bad offhand, but completely priced wrong against its competition. This card does not offer the performance needed to justify the increased price over the 980. Even Bit-Tech mentioned:
That, and the power usage is horrid. Again, nice attempt by AMD engineers, bad pricing by the suits.
Why is everyone complaining about the price? First of all, it performs 10% better than the competition adn second it is the new HBM technology that is more expensive to make than GDDR 5 (atm).
It performs 10% better than a 980 Ti? Where?
Where did he say Ti? I assumed he was talking about the 980, which is what the Fury goes up against.
Notice they put the factory OC'ed Fury cards up against the stock 980 at stock speeds. Go pull up reviews on the aftermarket 980s that are going for $500-$520 (MSI, Asus Strix, Zotac, G1 Gaming, etc.), and compare frame rates once they're overclocked with Afterburner. It's not uncommon to see a 20-25% performance bump over stock.
It's the same thing we keep seeing - why buy the AMD card when the Nvidia card is roughly the same price, provides better frame rates at popular resolutions like FHD and QHD, while sucking less power? It really only makes sense for the AMD fanboys who just won't buy an Nvidia card. But for everyone else, it's a tough sell.
I said it in other sections. The fury is a failure imo. Hard ocp did a review on the fury pitting it against a 10 month old 980 gm204. It seems to be around 10% faster than reference 980. It's got a crap oc ceiling too. I believe a 980 at 1500 can catch a stock fury and possibly be in the same ballpark as a oc fury.
overclocked fury??? you jest
G80 oc potential I meant to say not quite g92.
and you know how old GCN is now ? actually Keppler is its match, AMD just keep tweaking and tweaking and tweaking to match brand new arch. and again since when GCN ever had oc crown (this even voltage limited). and failure ? compared to maxwell, mmm... yes but not so much its older tech, no ?
If you want to look at it that way, then yes, GCN is doing amazing for a 2011 architecture. If you compare it against competition today though, it's just not competitive enough. In roughly the same space of time, Nvidia went through nearly three architectures: Fermi (2010), Kepler (2012), Maxwell (2014).
I am having hard time with 390x vs Fury Strix they are pretty much 7-13% apart, with 390x custom you are talking about even smaller difference. Where is all the power going from the added 768 shaders. Same for Fury X that has 1280 more shaders it simply isn't utilized. Fury X is only 10-19% faster then 290x(sorry 390x) it totally should be closer to 25% all in all faster but nope.
The difference between something like 290x and 280x is already over ~23% 390x adds to that and it grows to ~30% (even tho 290x and 390x are the same card). Then Fury X gives really minimal boost with 30% more shaders then 390x and even the Fury having way more shaders gives nothing really in real world applications kind of really inefficient.
290x the card that keeps ticking and running very well for its price,sorta too well for fury sake
Cept that it runs waaaaaaaaaaay too hot.