AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Reviews

[Rys]

@silent_guy said:

With AUTO-EXTREME technology and Dual 10mm mega heat pipes, the Asus board clearly beats the Sapphire board in terms of copywriting.

 

[Rys]

@Alexko said:

With AUTO-EXTREME technology and Dual 10mm mega heat pipes, the Asus board clearly beats the Sapphire board in terms of copywriting.

And don't forget that the AUTO-EXTREME Technology comes with Super Alloy Power II!

That's a really important part of it.

 

[Rys]

@CarstenS said:

http://videocardz.com/57177/amd-radeon-r9-fury-launches-tomorrow

press deck leak still 275 watts TDP even with being cut down

Slide 8/9/10 is what I was referring to earlier:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1859834/

 

[Rys]

@CarstenS said:

The Anandtech review seemed to extrapolate from some conversations with AMD that HBM saved 20-30W over Hawaii.

In the footnotes of some launch and review decks, AMD gives the following figures for isolated measurements of the fully loaded memory subsystems of R9 290X and Fury X: 10,66 and 42,66 GB/s bandwidth per watt. If my calculator is correct, that's 30,019 watts for R9 290X and 12,00 watts for Fury X, so it's 18 watts less.

 

[Rys]

@gamervivek said:

AT review mentioned that 290 was running at a higher voltage, presumably due to being worse binned than 290X.

Hopefully some of the reviewers with wide range of games like TPU see that Fury X would be retested as well with the new drivers.

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

 

[Rys]

@3dilettante said:

In the footnotes of some launch and review decks, AMD gives the following figures for isolated measurements of the fully loaded memory subsystems of R9 290X and Fury X: 10,66 and 42,66 GB/s bandwidth per watt. If my calculator is correct, that's 30,019 watts for R9 290X and 12,00 watts for Fury X, so it's 18 watts less.

The review in question indicated AMD estimated 15-20% of 250W for the 290X memory system, which is higher than the calculated figure. Unfortunately, I don't know which second-hand data point comes from where.

 

[Rys]

@Ryan Smith said:

The review in question indicated AMD estimated 15-20% of 250W for the 290X memory system, which is higher than the calculated figure. Unfortunately, I don't know which second-hand data point comes from where.

If we're talking about my review, those estimates all originate with Joe Macri.

 

[Rys]

@3dilettante said:

If we're talking about my review, those estimates all originate with Joe Macri.

Yes, the power estimates relative to board power in your review give a somewhat higher range than what the bandwidth per watt figures give for the known bus bandwidths. The isolated figures may be isolating something like the device draw or something on the GPU side.

 

[Rys]

@CarstenS said:

The first is from the HBM briefing call, the second from the R300/Fury-Series launchdeck - both NDAs safely expired, so it's okay to post them I guess.

That being said, I don't doubt Ryans Joe-obtained figures, but as 3dilletante mentioned, they might included something else - for example the power consumption of the memory controllers inside the GPU.

 

[Rys]

@Ryan Smith said:

they might included something else - for example the power consumption of the memory controllers inside the GPU.

Correct. The figures Joe gave us were for total memory power consumption.

 

[Rys]

@pharma said:

AMD Fury X vs. NVIDIA GTX 980 Ti: 2- and 3-Way Multi-GPU Performance
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...-GTX-980-Ti-2-and-3-Way-Multi-GPU-Performance

 

[Rys]

@Razor1 said:

Don't know if we should have another tread for the Fury reviews...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/07/10/sapphire-r9-fury-tri-x/10

 

[Rys]

@fellix said:

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/amd-radeon-r9-air-fury-reviews.57134/

 

[Rys]

@Chalnoth said:

Don't know if we should have another tread for the Fury reviews...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2015/07/10/sapphire-r9-fury-tri-x/10

http://anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus

The noise characteristics of the Sapphire card are especially amazing (about 1db higher than the background noise). Otherwise not terribly remarkable, but a high-end video card that is almost silent under load with air cooling is very impressive.

 

[Rys]

@gongo said:

Reading all these reviews...i am sad 28nm has held out for so long...+10fps gains generation to generation is saddening...

I also realized no one besides Sapphire and Powercolor TUL are selling Fury X....HBM short in supplies?
Another AMD marketing blunder by locking down on Fury X from AIB?

 

[Rys]

@kalelovil said:

I also realized no one besides Sapphire and Powercolor TUL are selling Fury X....HBM short in supplies?

That, or just the very meager clock headroom the card has to differentiate their offering.

 

[Rys]

@BrynS said:

It's been a while since I last posted here or followed a GPU launch closely, but I'm surprised there hasn't been much mention online yet of a paper launch when discussing Fury. Perhaps it would be unfair and I'm sure it won't be as bad some of the launches from years gone by (e.g. X1800 XT PE, NV30, etc), but in the UK at least, all the major e-tailors have had Fury X on pre-order since their seemingly small launch batch soldout on launch day. A cursory look on Newegg suggests supply is super limited in the US too.

Hopefully things will improve with the standard Fury supply. Speaking of which, would AMD have been better off delaying the Fury X launch until the first or second week of August (i.e. after Window 10 releases) so that all the launch reviews would be mandated to test with Windows 10/DirectX 12? It would have given AMD more time to tune the drivers and build up launch inventory. The launchs seems to have been delayed anyway and it doesn't look like Fury is targeted at any large OEM wins for the back to school season, so an extra few weeks delay might have been worth it assuming that the launch reviews showed the card more favourably (c.f. the 15.7 Catalyst release).

 

[Rys]

@Razor1 said:

Because of lack of competition in the mid range and low end was probably what hurt AMD the most. Loss of marketshare was pronounced after the gtx 980/ 970/960 was released So delaying it for 2 more months for Fury wouldn't have hurt them much but if nV's DX12 drivers end up being just as good as AMD's DX12 drivers when Windows 10 comes out, nothing will change. If AMD's drivers end up being more mature yes it would have been better. High end cards aren't what OEM's need for back to school sales, the 3xx series should do fine for back to school sales.

 

[Rys]

@CarstenS said:

I also realized no one besides Sapphire and Powercolor TUL are selling Fury X....HBM short in supplies?
Another AMD marketing blunder by locking down on Fury X from AIB?

While mostly not being in stock atm, we have access to AIB-stickered Fury X's from ASUS, Club 3D, Gigabyte, HIS, MSI, PowerColor, Sapphire, VTX3D and XFX. Maybe a regional thing?

 

[Rys]

@Dave Baumann said:

...but if nV's DX12 drivers end up being just as good as AMD's DX12 drivers when Windows 10 comes out, nothing will change.

Well, you don't necessarily know what will happen across a plurality if titles under DX12. The bottlenecks may end up shifting to a part of hardware that previously hasn't been a bottleneck.