AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Reviews

So, they have many Fiji Pro and much less Fiji XT. Perhaps the problem here is not HBM but TSMC's yield with 28 nm?

Also, remember they need the same dies for the upcoming R9 Nano launch.

 

Not surprising, not selling ...

 

It's odd that OCUK should have hundreds of Furies in stock when US retailers seem to have none: http://techreport.com/news/28651/radeon-r9-fury-and-r9-fury-x-availability-check-nope

 

Impossible. That only happens with Nvidia! /s

Isn't this Gibbo guy mostly know for being chronically inaccurate?

 

It's probably only me who WANTS one R9 Fury X ! NOW !

 

Based on link below he is head of his department (GPU?) at OCUK so should know their inventory.
http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/in-the-hot-seat-andrew-gibbo-gibson-from-overclockers/036418

I remember after the Fury X reviews he mentioned in a post they had 10 in inventory, but were getting 14 more in the following weeks.

 

I got one last week from newegg.

 

Noo me too, but my wife have reserved the money for the holliday .. lol.. cant say to her she will not see the sun,.,



...

 

Perhaps there's much more supply of Air Furies than water-cooled, X models. That would make some sense.

 

Air Furies are, let's say, salvage parts. R9 Nano won't be a salvage part with disabled units but the whole enabled die.

I guess they build up the necessary quantities for it.

 

What do you guess is a necessry quantity for a 175 watt card with unknown characteristics that only has it's size to set it apart a bit?

 

@fellix said:

AnandTech

Overclock 3D

The Tech Report

Hardware.fr

Guru 3D

PCPer

Tom's Hardware

TechPowerUp

PCGH

HardOCP

Hardware Canucks

Forbes

HardwareBG

Bit-Tech

Hexus

TweakTown

Legit Reviews

HardwareLUXX

ComputerBase

iXBT

Hardware.info

Hot Hardware

Hardware Heaven

SweClockers

KitGuru

 

@UniversalTruth said:



lhttp://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

 

@Rikimaru said:

Fury without water cooler will be more interesting product.

 

@fellix said:

The LuxMark performance is rather disappointing, considering Fury's advantage in both ALU and BW throughput. Nothing groundbreaking on the geometry and tessellation front, either.

 

@pharma said:

Seems like on average the Fury X is placed between GTX 980 and GTX 980ti across variety of resolutions.

 

@ToTTenTranz said:

If by variety you mean Project Cars and idTech5 games, then yes, I guess.

Generally, the Fury X is way faster than the 980. It stands between the 980 Ti and the Titan X, sometimes beating the two.

 

@pharma said:

I think you need to read a few more reviews posted by the OP.

 

@fellix said:

May be AMD should have gone with more pixel throughput for Fiji this time. There's still leftover BW for that to burn in.

p.s.:

Looks like Fiji's frame-buffer compression is only a bit better than Kepler's:



Now I revise my suggestion -- AMD should have put a more aggressive colour compression instead.