AMD Radeon R9 Fury reviews

I'd advise to look at Anandtech who used the latest 15.7 drivers on all AMD cards instead of most others who used 15.5 on older Radeons and the 15.15 beta on the Fury cards.

Looking at the overall picture with the 15.7 drivers, I think aircooled Fury's biggest enemy right now is actually the 390X for ~$400 and all the non-reference + factory-overclocked 290X that can still be found for $300 here and there.

The Fury seems to be just some ~15% faster than the reference 290X, and all the non-reference cards have a 5-8% overclock on top of them, making it a really small difference between the two.
It's also very interesting to see how well the old Hawaii does against GM204 with the newest drivers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...ew-CrossFire-Results/Power-Noise-Pricing-and-

PCper like it

The launch of the AMD Radeon R9 Fury is what the launch of the Fury X should have been: extremely positive and presenting AMD as a company that has amazing hardware products that not only compete with NVIDIA but that can be better. The Fury X was saddled with performance concerns (it wasn't faster than the GTX 980 Ti) as well as cooler and sound issues. The Fury (non-X) doesn't have any of those issues and instead stands here as a standard cooled graphics card with no design concerns and performance levels that beat the GTX 980 in every test we tossed at it (except for GTA V), sometimes by a large margin.
 
OCed 980 would surely at least tie OCed Fury. Maxwell overclocks like the dickens. The last card I owned that overclocked better than my 970 was my 6600 (non GT), which I took from 300 to over 400MHz all day long with coolbits :cool:. And my particular 970 isn't even a great overclocker based on what I've read.

IMO NVIDIA should refresh GM204 with something like GTX975 and 985. They definitely have the headroom (just look at some of the factory OC models) and a GTX975 could even have the full set of L2 and ROPs.

BTW I'm right on your tail... 5000 here I come!
 
Defintively, reviews are all over the place ( for furyX too, take the PCGH one vs the other, funny to see.. )
If someone can explain me why some test a game like FC4 DAI:I with MSAA at 4K, and no MSAA at 2560x1440, its really beyond me, but thats another debate. )
 
The hardocp review is comical where 980 would beat or be at par with fury with gameworks and then get pummeled without it.

Dying Light.

Performance jumped up on the ASUS STRIX R9 Fury. The Fury is now 31% faster than the GeForce GTX 980. :oops::oops::oops:The setting holding back performance seems to be the NVIDIA Depth of Field in this game. The GTX 980 can render it much better, the Fury not so much.
Click to expand...

and Far Cry 4.

The ASUS STRIX R9 Fury is 18% faster than the GeForce GTX 980 at this lower setting.
Click to expand...

Gold, Jerry, Gold! :LOL:

Tom's seems quite favorable with the card besting even Titan X in Far Cry 4 and Metro Last Light. Though they say,

It’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion about the Sapphire R9 Fury Tri-X knowing that AMD says upcoming drivers will tease more performance out of it. However, it is clear that, due to the higher leakage current, the air-cooled partner card is less efficient than the liquid-cooled Radeon R9 Fury X. Its power consumption is significantly higher than that of comparable Nvidia graphics cards.
Click to expand...

Oh well.

And hardware canucks don't find any performance improvement with the new catalyst whql.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../69792-amd-r9-fury-performance-review-20.html

Waiting eagerly for ixbt.ru review to counter pclab.pl's. :runaway:
 
Digitalfoundry have done a quick review at 4k, pretty much smokes 980, by 30% in FC4, and near 15-20% in most games. Though their selection does seem more geared towards AMD.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...ull-spec-for-cut-down-air-cooled-r9-fury-blog

Different settings apparently change the benchmarks wildly also. Gameworks is a big one, then settings like the advanced ones in GTA V, most have them close enough while Hexus has Fury(OCed version) ahead by like 20%.
 
The problem with many reviews, IMHO, is that they put those customs R9 Fury up against reference blower designs for other GPUs. It's kind of a nice gesture towards AMD hehe but it doesn't paint the whole picture. There can be a huge gap between reference designs and custom ones with the GTX 900s. Of course it's really annoying to have to look at 2 designs per GPU and time is limited. But I don't see how you can provide readers with any insightful analysis of the Sapphire/Asus R9 Fury performances by just looking at the reference GTX 980 benchmark numbers.
 
snc said:
1:17 :)
edit: sorry, I thought it was 4gb is enough topic
Click to expand...

Wrong thread, but you think this is the 4GB who is a problem ? i see only 3GB used when there's this stutter. And we cant say that Bullet use a lot of vram lol.
 
It's funny but it almost seems like some sites were 'persuaded' to only compare against only lower priced reference models. I'm glad a few credible sites got it right and included competitor models that compete based on price and non-reference custom design.
 
From a market positioning point of view, it makes some sense to compare the Fury against the 980. From a technical point of view, it's kinda ridiculous to compare a 600mm2 chip against one that's only 400mm2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
AMD RX 7900XTX and RX 7900XT Reviews
17 18 19
Replies
374
Views
57K
DegustatoR
D
D
Are modern GPU's really offering a worse level of performance than historic GPU's??
Replies
16
Views
2K
Kaotik
Kaotik
F
Value of Linus Tech Media benchmarking / reviews *pretend spawn
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
12K
eastmen
E
M
AMD supporting NVIDIA extensions on the sly?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Lurkmass
L
S
good websites for devices & SoC reviews
Replies
0
Views
1K
sanjeev2.k
S
Back
Top