AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Reviews
@Jawed said:
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.
Is there a bug in the test?
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.
Isn't Fury writing more than its theoretical 67 gigapixels per second in this test?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.
Is there a bug in the test?
@Lightman 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??
Something is not right about this review!
Nobel Prize to the person who noticed same thing as me!
HBM @600MHz?!? Overclocked in CCC !?! How??
@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.
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:
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.
@cal_guy said:
Note that Tom is using a Lian Li PC-T80X which is open case design so their experience may not be reflective of the majority of users who use standard cases.
Note that Tom is using a Lian Li PC-T80X which is open case design so their experience may not be reflective of the majority of users who use standard cases.
@pharma 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.
I think we will find drafting errors in most reviews due to time constraints. In some cases it will be obvious and others not.
@Babel-17 said:
'We're told that the high-pitched whine won't be present in retail cards, however. AMD send us this bit of info earlier today, "The issue is limited to a very small batch of initial production samples and we have worked with the manufacturer to improve the acoustic profile of the pump. This problem has been resolved and a fix added to production parts and is not an issue."'
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test?page=13
'We're told that the high-pitched whine won't be present in retail cards, however. AMD send us this bit of info earlier today, "The issue is limited to a very small batch of initial production samples and we have worked with the manufacturer to improve the acoustic profile of the pump. This problem has been resolved and a fix added to production parts and is not an issue."'
http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-and-hbm-put-to-the-test?page=13
@gongo said:
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...
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:
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.
I think we will find drafting errors in most reviews due to time constraints. In some cases it will be obvious and others not.
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.
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.
@pharma said:
Assuming voltage adjustments are forthcoming, hopefully FuryX can get better OC's.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20730-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/20#content
Assuming voltage adjustments are forthcoming, hopefully FuryX can get better OC's.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/20730-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/20#content
@gamervivek said:
Looking at sweclockers and Tom's, it's apparently better than 980Ti, very slightly, at 4k. So not all is lost.
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.
Looking at sweclockers and Tom's, it's apparently better than 980Ti, very slightly, at 4k. So not all is lost.
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:
Well, I guess it boils down to how you "cherry-pick" your results. As Ars Technica mentioned:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...k-performance-but-doesnt-beat-980-ti-overall/
