I'm sure we'll see situational "+10% performance" in specific games via driver updates, but cmon we're talking aboot AMD lol. They throw all their money into hardware/technology and ignore the fact that something using GDDR5 can still beat it most of the time because AMD's software sucks. Unless the Fury X sells really well, then I doubt it'll get significant driver support.
If anything, 980ti could start selling for more, simply because atm it costs the same but performs better.
AMD is great at making poor decisions (this card is not one, it is just 6+ months late to the race). And great at not getting driver overhead better the win10 drivers for whatever reason have way better overhead when used in w8.1 still not good enough not even nearly vs competition so lower resolutions will suffer when it comes to powerful cards. @ 599$ this card would be decent @ 549$ it would be great. I know Fury will come to that spot and it will land between 980 and Fury X. Then Nano will come and land somewhere between 980 and 390x?
Whores and pizza costs $650? Inflation. But anyways, I haven't bought a new GPU since I bought 660Ti since this bloody cards runs everything. In the new LOTR game I was getting close to 60fps in most areas maxed out at 1080p. In other games I can get good performance at medium-High quality (not 60FPS but 40-45 usually, which is acceptable to me). Anyways, I have been saving up for a LONG time (since 660Ti was released) and I was kinda excited thanks to fanboy hype behind Fury, mostly hoping card prices will drop further so I can purchase more than a GPU. Anyways, one thing I've learned now is that I just have to wait for Titanium cards from nVidia since Ti cards are bloody amazing and last long, really long. So I'll wait for more OC version of Ti cards. To those waiting for magical pixie driver dust to increase performance on Fury, the fact remains that with Gameworks/PhysX, nVidia still has more reasons for gamers to go for it. Nobody gives a **** about TressFX compared to Hairworks in Witcher 3. This is why AMD needs to give amazing performance to make it worth a while to lose nVidia only features, if someone goes for AMD now. But AMD can't even get past the reference card performance and this is just.. sad. They can't do better with CPU, nor with GPU. Only fanboys are keeping this company afloat at this point, it seems. PS: My 9600XT ran Doom 3. I loved it. Since I switched to nVidia, AMD has done nothing but disappoint. Kinda pisses me off. /rant /still hoping AMD will challenge nVidia.. one day..
tbh I am not convinced the use of HBM directly results in higher framerate, only in lower frametimes with less glitching. In which case, the Fury X would actually provide a better gameplay experience (which is ultimately what everyone wants, right?) than a 980 ti, but since AMD nuked HDMI 2.0 support we don't know. Another reason why lack of HDMI 2.0 was a bad decision as comparable FCAT results may have redeemed this card.
Everyone keeps talking about wait until drivers fix this, or Windows 10 does that, and DirectX12 drops... ...seems like a complete moot point as it's the same story for nvidia. It's not like they just rest on their laurels and do nothing in the meantime. AMD, if nothing else, needs to focus on supporting their line-up better with improved driver frequency and a massive Crossfire overhaul. Price the cards right and they'd still be in the game. Topping Nvidia is a fun exercise, but the money's in the lower tier stuff anyways. As it stands, it's worth it to spend a few more bucks for a similarly performing nvidia offering just for the support. AMD is dropping the ball there. Perhaps it's all an nvidia "conspiracy". :nerd:
He is getting 2. That points towards 4k/3x 1080p/3x 1440p screens. There it is quite equal + I have seen review where SLI 980Ti got outmatched bit by CF Fury X. (no idea if that was legit) So 4k+ resolution & dual GPU may happen to be better choice.
I actually think this is a great card when you factor in the form factor, I'm really anxious to see what the non-X Fury will offer as well as the Nano. I can also imagine how much better the GCN architecture would be on a a smaller lithography. To those that are saying that this product is underwhelming, I suppose it kind of is, because of the hype that's gone along, but the hype has all been generated by people on forums giving each other earache about how nVidia is too costly, how AMD needs to change the game etc but I must say it is a shame AMD haven't been able to bring out a card that would have been the performance king (but we knew this already anyway) though if we consider the roadmap AMD have been following, they've removed the relative bottleneck from the memory so it'll be really interesting to see what will come out in the future. Another thing about HBM, we're going to be seeing it used in other products not from AMD so think about the royalties AMD are going to earn from it (if they are going to licence it out), as some have said, it looks that the Fury X at the moment is proof of concept, it's perhaps a precursor to what the next generation may hold, problem is this is purly speculative. The truth is though, AMD have placed it directly in between the 980 and the TI version and these benchmarks are really interesting, wee see it performing much better than the 980, behind the TI sometimes, on par with the TI other times and occasionally better than the TI, tickling the Titan. We're certainly going to see a shift in the market in terms of prices at that segment and furthermore, these are the release prices, at the moment it's got the "new product" price premium, knowing how AMD cards pricing goes, we are going to see the retail price come down significantly over the next few weeks and months to come. At the moment though the games market on the PC platform is becoming problematic in terms of how the the graphics card manufacturers are trying to lock in titles to only be playable on certain hardware - looking at nVidia, I believe they are doing this because of losing out to AMD in the contracts for the console market and I think this is where the problem is now lying, not hardware, but software, heck I think it's disgusting that the developers using gameworks are contractually obligated to block any formal support from AMD to optimise for AMD hardware (I guess Intel too to a certain extent). tl;dr Fury X is performing where it's price point suggests, a bit pricey at the moment, but price will come down soon enough, future cards will be interesting to see.
Not what i expected but still a very powerful GPU. I will definitely get it, as with all AMD GPU's driver will improve performance in the future. What i'm waiting to see if we can benefit from that low temp. OC can boost up the performance by a good margin. I will wait thought couple of weeks cause the prices are ridiculous right now. In Romania it's only one model available and only one site has it. A bit of competition between brands and site is needed to go under the 980ti price.
AMD stock price is falling. RE: Prices, overclockers were selling them for a +£100 premium and sold out within minutes anyway lol
Nice review, was really excited to see what it can do,especially from all that hype, nothing impressive except for the temps. Waiting impatiently for the OC review .
FuryX reviews ... The Tech Report Hardware.fr Guru 3D PCPer Tom's Hardware TechPowerUp PCGH HardOCP Hardware Canucks Forbes HardwareBG Bit-Tech
by the time smaller dies are available nvidia would have access to hbm aswell amd had the chance to make this great well they still have about 6 months to make this right before nvidia can use hbm lets see what they do
What, wait....... are you feeling ok ? I never thought i'd see the day !!!! Guess this sheds some light on why the card is nicknamed Fury. Some say it was based on the AMD CEO's reaction when he was shown the performance of the card vs a 980ti.
