AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Reviews

[Rys]

@UniversalTruth said:

Fury still cant overclock for shits..

Legally, you don't even have the right to do so. When you are doing so, you agree that your warranty voids.

About what's interesting and what's not..... let's keep such subjective definitions out of the discussion.

Fury X is the competitor of Titan X.

While 980 TI has no direct answer from AMD.

 

[Rys]

@Bludd said:

Legally, you don't even have the right to do so. When you are doing so, you agree that your warranty voids.

What? Since when is voiding your warranty against the law?

 

[Rys]

@Infinisearch said:

Does the fury x consume more power than the titan x?

 

[Rys]

@UniversalTruth said:

Does the fury x consume more power than the titan x?

Statistically yes but realistically you won't notice a difference.

 

[Rys]

@Infinisearch said:

Statistically yes but realistically you won't notice a difference.

What do you mean by statistically? I just want to know if under a heavy load what the power draw difference is? ie 220w vs xxxwatts.

 

[Rys]

@Chalnoth said:

Everything about today's Fiji would have made sense if the competition had been 10-15% slower. IOW: Maxwell being a bit less efficient or Nvidia deciding on, say, 20 SMs with high speed DP instead of 24 SMs without.
It's totally fair to criticize AMD for Fiji's lackluster performance (and terrible introduction, and being late), but, at the time when its specs were decided, with the information then at hand, its current specs probably were the best way to go.

Sure. Hindsight is always 20/20. Doesn't mean they made the right strategic decisions. Their decisions may have been understandable, but it's still sad that they can't outperform the 980 Ti with 30% more memory bandwidth.

 

[Rys]

@Alexko said:

Does the fury x consume more power than the titan x?

A bit more, yes:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/937-7/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
http://techreport.com/review/28612/asus-strix-radeon-r9-fury-graphics-card-reviewed/11

 

[Rys]

@UniversalTruth said:

What do you mean by statistically? I just want to know if under a heavy load what the power draw difference is? ie 220w vs xxxwatts.

220 vs 245, for example.

 

[Rys]

@ToTTenTranz said:

What do you mean by statistically? I just want to know if under a heavy load what the power draw difference is? ie 220w vs xxxwatts.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/asus-radeon-r9-fury-strix-dc3-oc/22/

2W difference?
So yeah, realistically it doesn't make any difference.

 

[Rys]

@Chalnoth said:

Does the fury x consume more power than the titan x?

Yes. The 980 Ti and Titan consume the same amount of power, and both consume significantly less than the Fury X.

 

[Rys]

@Infinisearch said:

Thanks guys looks to be between 20 and 80 watts.

 

[Rys]

@Razor1 said:

Well yes it uses more power than a Titan X or 980 Ti and also needs unlocking of voltages to overclock, it will use much more power if its overclocked with upping the voltage. Its just not as efficient as an architecture when power is concerned as Maxwell 2.

 

[Rys]

@Alatar said:

Fury X is the competitor of Titan X.

Titan X is faster at 4K, faster by a bigger margin at 1440p and an even bigger margin at 1080p, has three times the memory, overclocks much better and is in a different price category.

How is the Fury X in any way a Titan X competitor? Different price segment and different performance.

While 980 TI has no direct answer from AMD.

Yes, this is why AMD chose to compare the Fury X to the 980Ti in their own marketing slides and review guides while also pricing the card at the exact same price point the 980Ti has.

It's still a worse deal than the 980Ti because the 980Ti has more memory, clearly wins 1440p and 1080p, roughly matches or slightly beats furyx at 4K, overclocks much better and also comes in non reference flavors that ramp up stock performance by 15%.

Fury X is a worse deal than the 980Ti unless we're talking about SFF but it's most definitely aimed at being a 980TI competitor by AMD.

 

[Rys]

@lanek said:

Yes. The 980 Ti and Titan consume the same amount of power, and both consume significantly less than the Fury X.

I see on techreport review, 330W for the TitanX, 330W for the FuryX and 327W for the stock 980TI ( goes way higher for the non stock one ).. so much difference.. ( ofc it is the full system

Titan X is faster at 4K, faster by a bigger margin at 1440p and an even bigger margin at 1080p, has three times the memory, overclocks much better and is in a different price category.

How is the Fury X in any way a Titan X competitor? Different price segment and different performance.



Yes, this is why AMD chose to compare the Fury X to the 980Ti in their own marketing slides and review guides while also pricing the card at the exact same price point the 980Ti has.

It's still a worse deal than the 980Ti because the 980Ti has more memory, clearly wins 1440p and 1080p, roughly matches or slightly beats furyx at 4K, overclocks much better and also comes in non reference flavors that ramp up stock performance by 15%.

Fury X is a worse deal than the 980Ti unless we're talking about SFF but it's most definitely aimed at being a 980TI competitor by AMD.

funny all review i see show the fury faster at 4k..

ANd i got the review guides here and i see nothing in it who match whatt you are saying .. And i can imagine that tridam, rys, guys from anand and other can match my voice on it.

 

[Rys]

@Razor1 said:

Not sure which review you were reading

Anandtech.

4k

Battlefield 4: Ultra Quality Titan X 16 % Faster
Shadows of Mordor: Ultra Quality: Equal
Civilization beyond Earth: Titan X 7% faster
Dragon Age Inquisition: Ultra Qaulity: Titan X 17% Faster
Talos Principle: Ultra Qaulity: Fury X 7% Faster
Far Cry 4:Ultra Quality: Fury X 5% Faster
Total War: Max Quality: Fury X 4% Faster
Grid Auto Sport: Ultra Quality: Titan X 18% Faster
Grand Theft Auto V: Very High Quality: Titan X 16% Faster

In All of these games the min frames are lower on Fury X


Tech Report:

http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/14

Outside of Witcher all other games were at 4k

Everything Tabulated

Titan X is Faster by 11% or so

Hexus
4k

Alien Isolation: Titan X 20% faster
BioShock Infinite: Titan X 4% Faster
Grand Theft Auto V: 16% Faster
Grid Auto Sport:Titan X 10% Faster
Shadows of Mordor: Equal
Tomb Raider: Fury X 2% Faster
Total War Rome: Titan X 14% Faster
Witcher 3: Titan X 3% Faster

If you were talking about the 980 Ti just cut the results in half, 980 Ti and Fury X are very close in performance at 4k.

On the power usage side of things, almost all reviews are 20 watts to 80 watts difference. There might be one or two reviews are either lower or higher than those numbers. But average is around 50 watts.

 

[Rys]

@UniversalTruth said:

Look at TPU, Fury X needs a driver or two to fix the performance issues in some titles and it will win.

You can start with this page:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/7.html

Alien: Isolation
3840 X 2160

GTX 980 Ti 62.0 FPS
R9 Fury X 62.2 FPS

and then you can follow the next page, and next, and next, all the way to the end.

And then, return here and honestly say.

 

[Rys]

@gamervivek said:

Well, AT are not giving min. fps for many of those games, not that I doubt Titan X would be doing better. And Civ. BE with mantle on AMD,

The bigger advantage of Mantle is really the minimum framerates, and here the R9 Fury X soars. At 4K the R9 Fury X delivers a minimum framerate of 50.5fps, some 20% better than the GTX 980 Ti.

It's better than Titan X as well.

It's better than 980Ti in the TPU review if you don't include Project Cars, Wolfenstein(which AMD have some bug with) and WoW(they didn't include it either because of high fps?) . Between the two GM200 cards. However with its lower vram and lower overclocking ability, it's still not enthusiast choice card over either. Even if better drivers push it slightly above Titan X in majority of titles.

 

[Rys]

@Chalnoth said:

I see on techreport review, 330W for the TitanX, 330W for the FuryX and 327W for the stock 980TI ( goes way higher for the non stock one ).. so much difference.. ( ofc it is the full system

That's an unusual result. The exact result will depend quite a bit upon the specific testing setup and the software used. But most reviews I've seen put the 980Ti and Titan at the same power consumption, and the Fury X at about 15-25 watts higher.

funny all review i see show the fury faster at 4k..

Not the reviews I've seen. See here, for example:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/13

 

[Rys]

@Chalnoth said:

Well, AT are not giving min. fps for many of those games, not that I doubt Titan X would be doing better. And Civ. BE with mantle on AMD,



It's better than Titan X as well.

It's better than 980Ti in the TPU review if you don't include Project Cars, Wolfenstein(which AMD have some bug with) and WoW(they didn't include it either because of high fps?) . Between the two GM200 cards. However with its lower vram and lower overclocking ability, it's still not enthusiast choice card over either. Even if better drivers push it slightly above Titan X in majority of titles.

This specific advantage will likely disappear with DX12.

 

[Rys]

@gamervivek said:

Then the general disadvantage will likely disappear as well.