AMD Radeon R9 Fury reviews

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by fellix, Jul 10, 2015.

Tags:
  1. fellix

    fellix Hey, You!
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,486
    Likes Received:
    397
    Location:
    Varna, Bulgaria
  2. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,839
    Likes Received:
    4,456
    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.
     
    #4 ToTTenTranz, Jul 10, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  3. Gandahar

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  4. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Good review from the perspective of reviewing similarly priced competitor products and also use the latest drivers available for both. :smile:
    http://pclab.pl/art64759.html
     
  5. Dr Evil

    Dr Evil Anas platyrhynchos
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    775
    Location:
    Finland
    Looking pretty good. The Sapphire cooler seems excellent! Regular Fury is still not cheap though and it has very little OC headro0m. I'd like to see a comparison between OC'd 980 vs OC'd Fury.

    edit: Yayyy 5000 posts. Took me 11 years + 1 day.
     
    Kej, Lightman, Razor1 and 2 others like this.
  6. homerdog

    homerdog donator of the year
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    6,129
    Likes Received:
    904
    Location:
    still camping with a mauler
    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 :cool2:. 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!
     
  7. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    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. )
     
  8. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    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.

    and Far Cry 4.

    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,

    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:
     
  9. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    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%.
     
  10. Tridam

    Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
    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.
     
    homerdog and pharma like this.
  11. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Let's hope they don't use Nvidia reference blower models as well as old drivers like they did for the Fury X review. :lol2:
     
  12. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Hey it might help nvidia in the long run if they refresh their lineup with 975/985 a la 390, who knows.
     
  13. snc

    snc
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    61
    1:17 :)

    edit: sorry, I thought it was 4gb is enough topic
     
  14. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    @snc
    If that is Fury X this is wrong thread.
     
  15. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    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.
     
  16. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
  17. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    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.
     
  18. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...