AMD Radeon R9 Fury reviews

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

Tags:
  1. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    Wrong.

    The Fury is ~15% faster than 390X - 100% vs 87% at 4K.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/31.html

    I am wondering how he got that conclusion. When just a day ago he posted some numbers stating otherwise.
     
  2. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    910
  3. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
  4. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,971
    Likes Received:
    4,565
    Except that no matter how much green fairy dust you try to pour on it, your fully enabled GM204 at 400mm^2 does not perform close to a fully enabled 600m^2 Fiji XT.
    Gameworks titles aside (where it might get within some 10% on the most extreme cases), the 980 does not perform even remotely close to a Fury X.

    That comparison is stupid.

    Perhaps you'll try to argue that the GTX 970 (a lower binned and cut-down GM204) comes close to a Fury (lower binned and cut-down Fiji)?
    Then there you go:

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]


    What's that? A bunch of benchmarks showing the lower-binned variant of the 50% bigger chip has 50% more performance than the lower-binned variant of the smaller chip?
    And the same thing is happening between the fully-enabled versions of the same chips?

    The shock!
     
    Lightman likes this.
  5. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    http://pclab.pl/art64759.html
    Let's call it a toss-up. :-D
     
    #45 pharma, Jul 11, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2015
  6. Rys

    Rys PowerVR
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,156
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Beyond3D HQ
    Not sure what graphs you're looking at, but those you posted show a difference of 22.3-43.8%.
     
  7. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Am I supposed to be impressed that you've just discovered this?

    That's opinion, and you're entitled to it.

    What's not opinion is that AMD has positioned a 600mm2 die with very expensive memory technology against a 400mm2 with dirt cheap memory technology. It matters very little that one is a recovery and the other a perfect: 28nm is about as mature as process can be. 550mm2 perfect dies in the form of GTX 780 Ti have been on the market in high volume over almost 2 years now. So have 420mm2 prefects in the form of Hawaii. Or 360mm2 perfects for 3.5 years in the form of Tahiti. The yields on a perfect 400mm2 gm204 may well be higher than the yield of a recovered Fiji.

    Congratulations! You came up with a trivial premise that nobody would contest in the first place and then proved said premise to be true. Everybody needs to learn to walk before they can run, so a "good boy!" is in order?
     
  8. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    No they don't.

    :lol:

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1564303/various-amd-r9-fury-reviews/340#post_24155695

    Or maybe they do, which would make it even worse. Nevermind that TechReport should label it as such in their graphs.

    It isn't if 980 is at $500. Nevermind that even OCed cards will find it hard to get a 20% or higher boost.

    Where? The first thing I came across while reading about Fury reviews was how the new drivers didn't do anything to improve performance which was being celebrated by nvidia fans, not realizing that it does the opposite for their case. :lol:

    I did comment on the first leaker of the Fury X getting impressive results in Far Cry 4, but I expressed my skepticism with them as well. Though not on this forum.

    https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/catalyst-15-7-released-win10.57127/page-2#post-1860147

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1561860/various-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-reviews/2930#post_24148118
     
  9. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Gigabyte 980 G1 is $519 on Newegg (or $499 w/$20 rebate), much cheaper than the Fury base price ($549) or Asus Fury's price ($579).

    It will be an interesting next few weeks.
     
  10. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,971
    Likes Received:
    4,565
    No, you're supposed to understand that no one is going to buy this "Fiji is so very bad" crap because you decided to compare performance/area between a chip that is fully enabled and another that salvaged by disabling execution units, and are somehow trying to pass this as a legitimate comparison.

    I myself have presented my fair share of criticism on Fiji, but this is completely bonkers.
    How come the 390X gets about 29% more performance than a GTX 970 in Shadows of Mordor 4K with only a 10% larger die? Wow, GM204 is such a bad chip!!111one



    You mean those huge memory price differences that you so far have completely made up in your head and insist bringing up in every. single. post. about Fiji?
    Yes, I'll totally keep in mind the silent_guy's chart of made-up things the next time I'm comparing GPUs and graphics cards, and I'm pretty sure everyone else here will too.




    Yeah, gotta love them 1080p results from a 2 year-old game for >$500 cards.
     
    #50 ToTTenTranz, Jul 12, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  11. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Fluctuations in prices do happen and cards are overpriced at release with less of stock.

    Still waiting on that ixbt review, but that GTA V bench looks quite cpu bottlenecked, with 980Ti less than 10% faster.
     
  12. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Yep, I also love the higher resolutions with newer games ... but I guess you've already seen this.
    [​IMG]
     
  13. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    10 July 2015
    http://hexus.net/tech/features/systems/84593-qotw-which-enthusiast-gpu-choose/
     
    #53 pharma, Jul 12, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
    homerdog and Lightman like this.
  14. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    That's good to know, but haven't seen anything official. And 980Ti dipping in price while the perception is that it's a better card than Fury X sounds strange.
     
  15. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,971
    Likes Received:
    4,565

    Hard to miss, since you posted that very same graph not one, not two but three times in this thread, with the last two being within the span of ~30min.
    Perhaps if you post it another 3 times we'll start to collectively believe that GTA V at 1440p is the only game we'll ever play, and we'll only play it in Paleto Boulevard.
    (I'm kidding, please don't do that..)


    ixbt already have GTA V with the Fury X in their latest 3D Digest.
    It seems the game scales like ass when Antialiasing is turned on, but the multi-GPU solutions show that it's not CPU-limited.
    Without that, the game scales quite well:

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
    gamervivek and Tchock like this.
  16. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    It's a game of "chicken" ... all about pricing strategy and who has the lower profit point.
     
    Razor1 likes this.
  17. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Well, the strange part is nvidia doing it for a card that is supposedly better. Very unlike them hence my wait to see if it's really official. Maybe they got traumatised by the ixbt review. :p
     
  18. Dr Evil

    Dr Evil Anas platyrhynchos
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    5,777
    Likes Received:
    782
    Location:
    Finland
    It does perform quite close if you don't cherry pick only 4k results and actually fully enable them as in overclock them. No need to even raise the voltages .
     
  19. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Even if they'd disable 100% of the functional units and achieved 100% yield, the die is still 50% larger. (And requires an interposer. And requires HBM. And requires a beefier cooler. And requires a beefier power circuit.) That is what makes it such a shitty proposition for AMD.

    When all else fails, let's resort to cherry picking individual results. It's a sign of desperation. Just go to the TPU average results and you'll see that even at 4k, the difference between a 970 and a 390X (with 8GB!) is only 12%, and only 8% for 2560x1440.

    Without HBM, and with 100% yields on either side, and at $6000 per water, the difference between Fiji and gm204 is $26 right there. I think that's a very nice starting point. Why don't you, for a change, come up with correction factors and make some quantitate estimates about how this becomes a good deal for AMD.
     
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...