@3dilettante said:
I wonder how many people would be able to identify a FuryX from a GTX 980 Ti during game play. Probably not many? (Except for games that run out of memory.) How of a frame rate difference do you really need to have a different experience?
In general, Fury X has taken a rather assertive change in terms of product quality, aside from some inconsistencies. (clarification: inconsistencies in mostly non-physical facets like new drivers)
Its acoustics are a plus, as even Nvidia in these power ranges starts to lose its sonic polish.
That it's a water cooler could be a minus for some, but it seems like Fury X would have a problem getting to this parity if it were air-cooled.
Some demerits might have more weight for certain buyers, and since this is a smaller market it adds up.
Lapses like the outdated output hurt it for some versus the competition, negating its benefit to some buyers that would like a physically small card that might plug into a big TV.
There are potential difficulties in fitting the radiator in a case or multiple radiators with crossfire. The limited RAM capacity might solve that multiple radiator problem in a negative way, and buyers in this range would notice.
The really limited tweaking options hurt at this tier, so hopefully AMD has a way of fixing this. I think it will be important that this gets fixed before the dual-GPU card launches if it wants to get any higher in the price range.
What's the point of tricking an audience when the truth will inevitably come out a week later? It'd be fun to be a fly on the wall during their marketing post-mortems...
Since one of the most notable references to the dual-GPU Fastest Card ever involved a handoff to the CEO, it might be that disappointed upper-tier enthusiasts weren't the only audience. AMD had already painted a picture of turning its fortunes around with a refreshed product stack, and things like 8GB, 4K, "12K", and a 500W cooler taken in isolation might distract a few investors.
