AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Reviews

@Jawed 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.
The results we're seeing, at 8MP, would appear to indicate that Fury has enough colour fillrate, since that resolution is the most likely to tax colour fillrate.

Luckily hardware.fr includes HD 7970 at 925MHz, so Fury X is 2.27x faster on almost every theoretical.

Which leads to the question: why are so few games scaling by >2x? Crysis 3 and Witcher 3 being the only games with real scaling.

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

51TXswN.gif


Now I revise my suggestion -- AMD should have put a more aggressive colour compression instead. :???:
Isn't Fury writing more than its theoretical 67 gigapixels per second in this test?

Is there a bug in the test?
 
@Infinisearch said:

Did any of the reviews give power consumption for the card and its cooling solution? The ones I perused only seem to be system or card.

edit - forget it I saw a picture on techreport and it looks like power is supplied by the card.
 
@iroboto said:

Were there details given about Doom 4?
All I know is that it actually leverages hardware PRT/Tiled resources. On console I assume they would make use of asynchronous copy and with directX 12 being released next month on PC they should be porting that over to some degree.
 
@pharma said:

Something is not right about this review!

Nobel Prize to the person who noticed same thing as me!

HBM @600MHz?!? Overclocked in CCC !?! How??

I think we will find drafting errors in most reviews due to time constraints. In some cases it will be obvious and others not. :D
 
@gongo said:

Do you think it will be possible AMD 'unlocks' Fury X overclocking later?
Why did they put dual bios switch if both have the same bios codes?
Then again...flashing bios is not for the mainstream...

....holding out for a glimmer of hope...
 
@gongo said:

I've not had direct involvement with consumer graphics of over a year now.

Hmm.. this could explain why i feel AMD graphics is lacking the ...close touch with the ground ...as of late...

Till now, no feedback from AMD about Fury X overclocking doldrums....the high FCAT times at 1080p/1440p...
 
@Lightman said:

I think we will find drafting errors in most reviews due to time constraints. In some cases it will be obvious and others not. :D

But they would have to go a long way to fake their screen shot with GPU-Z and Firestrike open ... more likely they just lucked in on a card with unlocked BIOS.
 
@flopper said:

the team was nervous at the presentation.
they need a coach to help them with being calm and confident.
they misshandled the launch and reivew so badly and couldnt manage expecations and have a HUGE backlash atm from everyone all over the world.
do they want to fail as a company?

How can you say its a dream card for overclocking and not have voltage tools ready for reviews?
failing to inform the public and managing expectations made it a disaster as a review launch.

Hire me guys before its to late.
 
@eastmen said:

well its been known for a week or so that there wouldn't be voltage adjustments at launch.
 
@gamervivek said:

Looking at sweclockers and Tom's, it's apparently better than 980Ti, very slightly, at 4k. So not all is lost. :D

64ROPs vs 88(?)ROPs of 980Ti at higher clockspeed, it doesn't look that bad now. Still lack of ram and overclockability vs. 980Ti seems to be hurting it.

And does anyone else find it comical that nvidia came up with DSR while it's AMD who are doing relatively better at higher resolutions, and now VSR is supposedly better with next to no performance hit(why no more mention of it in reviews?) and less blurriness.
 
@pharma said:

Well, I guess it boils down to how you "cherry-pick" your results. As Ars Technica mentioned:

The results over at Tom's Hardware are something of an anomaly compared to those of other sites, though. Hexus' results showed the Fury X as slower than the 980 Ti in most games at 1440p and 4K, which was echoed by the benchmarks over at Maximum PC and Tech Report.

To discern a real difference between the Fury X and 980 Ti, you need to look at numbers other than average frame rates—and then AMD's offering starts to sag. First off, there's overclocking performance, which isn't great. PC World noted in its review that, despite AMD touting the Fury X as "an overclocker's dream," it was only able to eke out an extra 50MHz on top of the stock 1050MHz clock speed before instability set in. Hexus did slightly better with a 90MHz overclock, but no site managed anything particularly ground breaking. Memory overclocking isn't possible, either, due to AMD locking it down at a hardware level. Notably, a factory overclocked 980 Ti consistently out performed the Fury X in PC World's benchmarks.

The biggest differentiator, though, is power consumption and heat. Traditionally, AMD hasn't fared too well, but the Fury X does far better. The combination of more power-efficient HBM memory and an excellent watercooling system has enabled AMD to keep the GPU temperature down to around an impressive 60 degrees Celsius under load, far cooler than the 80C-and-higher of the stock Nvidia cards. AMD says the Fury X consumes around 275 watts under load on average, and the reviews largely reflect that, showing peaks of around 290 watts. That's still on average around 40 watts more than 980 Ti, and around the same as a 290X, but it's an impressive showing considering the extra performance on offer.

For all the good AMD has done with the Fury X, there's still one niggle that cropped up in most reviews: a high frame time variance. This is a problem that has long afflicted AMD cards, causing stuttering slowdowns, despite an overall high average frame rate.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...k-performance-but-doesnt-beat-980-ti-overall/
 
Back
Top