FuryX aging tremendously bad in 2017

Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon' started by DXDiag, Jan 24, 2018.

  1. DXDiag

    DXDiag New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 1080Ti
    Most 2017 AAA titles had the FuryX dropping fast below the 980Ti, and even the GTX1060/RX580/980 level. It's due to a combination of bad Tessellation/Geometry performance, limited VRAM and bad optimizations. And that's only 2 years after it's introduction to the market. Guess Kepler wasn't alone afterall. Here are the games affected (copied from multiple sources):

    Dozens of 2017 games where the FuryX is barely faster than an RX580, and way behind the 980Ti
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7ckjj5/furyx_aging_tremendously_bad_in_2017/

    [GameGPU] 980Ti is 30% faster than FuryX in 2017 games
    http://gamegpu.com/test-video-cards/podvedenie-itogov-po-graficheskim-resheniyam-2017-goda

    [ComputerBase] GTX 1070 is considerably ahead of the Fury X
    https://www.computerbase.de/2017-12...marks_in_1920__1080_2560__1440_und_3840__2160
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2018
  2. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    ^^ for some titles you can't set Ultra Textures for Fiji without command -maxvram=4200 :cool:
    It is aging good IMO, look at Bf1 1440p (so close to 1080 lol) and other Normal Games (those with good optimisations & 1440 textures, for some you need to download Ultra textures Pack >30GB and this is sure an no go for Fiji w/HBM).

    Im playing most of my Games at (only) 1005/550 -10Pow 1.175v & i have 60-70FPS (my Freesync sweet Smooth Gameplay) NP at 1440p.

    One game i have needs 1023/550 -> NFS Payback ;) (Ultra Preset in-Game + AAO*)

    * AAO is Approximate ambient occlusion (fun fact is from DX12 lol)
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
    user1 likes this.
  3. user1

    user1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    72
    GPU:
    hd 6870
    unless you are running 4k+res , ultra textures have almost no visible impact on image quality on most games, I would consider the test flawed, since it is well understood that if you use more vram than a card has your gonna have a bad time on pretty much any gpu. (except maybe vega with HBCC on)
     
  4. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    Yes no Impact on 1080/1440p Monitor but when goin' to 30" 4k then 30GB textures are looking Best :D
    But i have 1440p so it's useless for me & for 80%* ppl out there.

    * But i like they added suport for such textures for those 20% :p
    Like always we need to ugrade H/W from time to time :cool: (im waiting till summer or september for Vega 2 i Wanna 16GB HBM_2 GPU lol)
     

  5. DXDiag

    DXDiag New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 1080Ti
    It's not one test, it's dozens of tests from dozens of sites, reasons vary, limited VRAM is one of them, but other reasons include bad tessellation performance as well. You see this in games even at 1080p. The VRAM issue is AMD's fault since they claimed it won't affect the card's performance.
     
  6. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    254
    GPU:
    1080Ti @h2o
    Registers to post polarized anti AMD stuff. Highly suspicious.
     
  7. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,803
    Likes Received:
    74
    GPU:
    Fury X - XL2420T(Z)@144Hz
    "I am not going Waste Time, by Overclocking Fury X."
    I think that tells a lot about sentiment of this review. Guy simply dislikes Fury X.

    "Yet again, 980Ti proves to be extremely capable even in today's games."
    Slide showing:
    STOCK: 1% - 32 fps / average 38 fps
    OC: 1% - 38 fps / average 45 fps
    Same Test Fury X:
    STOCK: 1% - 31 fps / average 36 fps
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  8. JonasBeckman

    JonasBeckman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    296
    GPU:
    Sapphire R9 Fury OC
    Agreed that it's aged but I see it more as a hardware limitation than a software one and from reading up on it over the last few months it mostly looks like unbalanced hardware though how much of a difference this makes and how much the drivers could improve is hard to answer.

    Geometry performance isn't the best in any case and it also lacks the discard features found on Polaris though it has more hardware but in benchmarks the 480 and 580 GPU's close in on the Fury in most titles though the newer games also need a bit more VRAM, Wolfenstein 2 New Colossus in particular but exceeding 4 GB at 2560x1440 and above isn't difficult and even if HBM is fast the Fury can't use this effectively.

    GB/s points at a max 512/s but from testing it appears to cap out around 380/s and then VEGA caps out at 490/s though it has been accused of being memory bandwidth or just clock limited but testing has revealed this is not the full cause of why it's sometimes underperforming since a overclock from 800 Mhz to 1100 Mhz only yielded a 5 - 6% gain, still good results though and I don't think the custom Vega GPU's using Hynix over Samsung clock anywhere near as well though that's going from what I've read only.
    (Drivers also lag behind with some features not being available and most recently rumored of being cut entirely though since early tests showed these to be lackluster I'm not surprised and it would likely only work properly from a full game specific implementation.)

    Still, got about two - three years out of the GPU so that's not bad, finding a replacement with these prices though well that's a problem. :D
    (580's are slowly making a comeback but they're either a bit slower or similar in terms of performance and the Vega well it's unavailable everywhere and then price wise it's going above what the 1080Ti costs heh well that's problematic too but since it's not even available it doesn't mean much until the stock situation improves if it ever does.)


    EDIT: It's a complex architecture I guess and GCN has limits although since the 7000 series GPU's and GCN 1.0 or GCN Gen1 AMD has done a lot of work with the arch too but something is still holding back Vega but it could also be from the software (driver) side in addition to hardware and overall efficiency whether it's geometry or shader.

    I got a lot out of the GPU considering how fast things tend to move and the hardware requirements have increased over the last year or two alone so I can't really complain though yeah I am definitively feeling the GPU getting more and more limited in newer games.
    (Settings can be turned down though although I can handle a lower framerate but eventually it'll need to be replaced and yay for current day prices on hardware ha ha.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  9. user1

    user1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    72
    GPU:
    hd 6870
    I'm fully aware, vram limitation is the major issue with the tests, im not making excuses for its real weaknesses, to say its "aged" poorly, would imply that it is weaker than it was during its prime relative to its competitor, the fury x never pushed really high framrates, if your pushing more than 100 fps, your gonna see a big difference, not because the video card is stressed, but because it can't be fed fast enough by its frontend (which has always been the furyx's problem), fact of the matter is if you want an honest test, you eliminate factors that are largely irelevant to the test , in this case unneccesary performance hits for virtually no visual impact due to vram limitations,


    If i put a 1gb 7870 against a 2gb 6970 and jacked up the texture quality and said "look how much better the 6970 has aged" it would be a pretty pointless, useless observation

    which is why the test or "tests" as you favor to call it are flawed.

    And i only say they are flawed, since they are trying to compare real world performance. i don't dispute the data. just their conclusions

    lastly,

    "Well, at 1920x1080 average volume will be a maximum rate of 5.6 gigabytes of graphics memory. The maximum can reach 9 gigabytes. When 2K average comes to 5.8 gigabytes, and can reach a maximum level of 9.2 gigabytes. Well, in the 4K VRAM average consumption rate by 1080 Ti 7 GB, and the maximum for almost 10."

    this is from the gamegpu aricle you quoted, seems pretty clear to me even at 1080p vram is a problem for furyx in 2017 with the highest texture detail.

    Now im actually curious to see how it would perform without the vram limitation.
     
    OnnA likes this.
  10. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    ^^ "Now im actually curious to see how it would perform without the vram limitation."
    !!!! GREAT !!!! :D
     

  11. Goiur

    Goiur Master Guru

    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    31
    GPU:
    AMD R9 Fury X 1105/550
    Yep... the 4gb of HBM fall short for some games, but overall performance is fine for me lowering texture quality.

    Still got some guarantee time left, I won't cry if it dies before August lol
     
  12. Agent-A01

    Agent-A01 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,634
    Likes Received:
    388
    GPU:
    1080Ti H20
    Do what?

    That's just plainly not true.

    For those games that actually double the texture size and/or use uncompressed normal maps the difference is noticeable even on 720p.
    I don't know why you think you need above 4k to see the difference between a 2048x2048 texture and a 4096x4096 one.

    Probably because If both were OCed the gaps would be even larger.

    A good Ti will hit 1600mhz which is above 1080 performance.
    Maybe a decent/avg card only hits 1500 but it's still a much higher margin of improvement than fury cards get from oc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  13. user1

    user1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    72
    GPU:
    hd 6870
    It depends on the game, I can't think of a game that quadruples the texture resolution between the highest texture quality and the second highest, and minimal texture compression saves alot of vram for little visual loss. How big of a difference it makes is largely dependant on personal preference. af makes a much bigger impact most of the time than incrementing the texture quality from highest to second highest IMO.

    Sure you can set a negative lod to get higher detail at lower res, but im not a fan of shimmering.
     
  14. kondziowy

    kondziowy Member

    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64 Nitro
    LoL this reddit post again. Who told this guy Fury X was ever faster than 980Ti?
    Hey look, we knew this is not true in 2015
    Big news everybody! Let's bench Wolfenstein Mein Leben details more and add more invisible tesselation to ME:Andromeda :)
     
  15. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    You guys forgeting the most Important thing in todays/yesterdays Gaming !
    Only 2-5% Gamers with nVidia has G-Sync (Price difference is in Play, sometimes ~200€ !! o_O)
    90% of Radeon Gamers has FreeSync capable/Modable Monitor :D (the Price is the same, for good Monitor )

    Now who's your daddy :p

    nV is the winner with Benchies (since 980Ti)
    ATI is the ppl choice -> Affordable & Feesync'ed ;)
     

  16. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    254
    GPU:
    1080Ti @h2o
    Yeah, the market share represents "the people's choice". "Affordable" is a question of your budget, also.
     
  17. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    OK, it's not my Problem anyways ;)
    For many years to come i will stick with ATI Technologies (Waiting for Vega 2 16GB -> i hope it will be something like that lol)
     
    fantaskarsef likes this.
  18. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    254
    GPU:
    1080Ti @h2o
    Cool story bro! ;)
     
    Solfaur likes this.
  19. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,803
    Likes Received:
    74
    GPU:
    Fury X - XL2420T(Z)@144Hz
    Vega 2x96 16GB? Why not? But I think we should wait for Navi :-]

    Edit: About market share. Anything above cheap RX560 2GB is sold out here for weeks unless extremelly overpriced.
    On nV's side of barrier availability ends at 1050Ti 4GB. From gaming perspective that's close to 2x as powerful and twice as usable due to double memory.

    Basically, AMD sells everything except total trash.... miners. Anyone who can't wait till this hardware floods market and both AMD and nV fails to sell anything for months?
    (except to OEMs)
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  20. OnnA

    OnnA Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    202
    GPU:
    Fiji-X HBM 1150/550
    "But I think we should wait for Navi :-]"

    Ughhh Navi is scheduled 2020 !
    F.unk that, let's just wait till summer :p
     

Share This Page