|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Some of these OC numbers for the 980ti are simply aftermarket card values too... so its not like the majority of 980ti buyers from this point on have to touch a single setting to soundly beat the fury x. HardOCP ripped AMD a new one in their conclusion.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:HardOCP ripped AMD a new one in their conclusion. Guess whos not getting gpus to review anymore 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:HardOCP ripped AMD a new one in their conclusion. Wait they got a card?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Guess whos not getting gpus to review anymore Lol thats what I was thinking Also HardOCP posted:AMD's GPU program for the first time has truly reminded us of its CPU program. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:I am digging the upbeat attitude from these review sites lol. Sort of have to be upbeat about it or AMD will refuse to provide review samples. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Nvidia's $649 price point on the ti really hosed them
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Nvidia's $649 price point on the ti really hosed them Yep. That card being that soon after Titan X and so close in performance was brutal. Fury X would've done fine against Titan X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
So to stay positive about it, you can at least say if you bought a Fury X you aren't a dumbass. Also, if you wanted the small form factor but had a spot for the radiator it might even be the best choice for some people. Anyways, off to buy a 980ti lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
They're probably kicking themselves now that they could have charged $700 or $749 even 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Ouch, that hardocp review really is damning. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/11 quote:The new AMD Fiji GPU and Fury X video card looks awesome on paper, but has underwhelmed and disappointed us when it comes to real world gameplay. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X feels like a proof of concept for HBM technology. Filthy Monkey fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Closeout pricing on fury X has already begun http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9777989
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Filthy Monkey posted:Ouch, that hardocp review really damning. If AMD was actually trying to manipulate reviews and gave HardOCP a card, that's ridiculous in the extreme. Those are the guys who if I remember right pulled a DIRT game because its features favored AMD, and are now running Project Cars and talking poo poo at AMD for not magically making it run well. I simply cannot believe that AMD was trying to ransom cards for good coverage and those guys got one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Closeout pricing on fury X has already begun Lol  xthetenth posted:If AMD was actually trying to manipulate reviews and gave HardOCP a card, that's ridiculous in the extreme. Those are the guys who if I remember right pulled a DIRT game because its features favored AMD, and are now running Project Cars and talking poo poo at AMD for not magically making it run well. I dont know what they've done in regards to AMD, but they are a rough bunch. To be fair, they aren't easy on a lot of things. Also they happen to be right this time :x
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
I get access denied on that link? Is that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Truga posted:I get access denied on that link? Is that the joke?  I doubt it will pan out though edit: Well, it let me buy it  I now own a Fury X. Hmmmm...
penus penus penus fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:If AMD was actually trying to manipulate reviews and gave HardOCP a card, that's ridiculous in the extreme. Those are the guys who if I remember right pulled a DIRT game because its features favored AMD, and are now running Project Cars and talking poo poo at AMD for not magically making it run well. I simply cannot believe that AMD was trying to ransom cards for good coverage and those guys got one. ...? There's no Project CARS test in the HardOCP review or any of their other recent reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
repiv posted:...? There's no Project CARS test in the HardOCP review or any of their other recent reviews. They copped a metric ton of poo poo for it. Glad to see it's gone. And they gave the 960 a bit of a hard time on the way to a silver award so they do tend to give a harder time in general. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Did they retcon their reviews? Not a single one they've written since PCars came out mentions the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:Lol Lmao what on earth is right
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4 That TessMark is indeed  are we sure the Fury has Tonga blood in its veins?Otherwise gotta agree with HardOCP, nice demo and a sign of life from ATI but really no point in buying one. sauer kraut posted:Is that the watercooled X top model failing to beat a 980ti with factory 1.2GHz OC? Good luck selling it plus that Star Wars game for more than 550$ TigerDirect know what time it is. sauer kraut fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Don't know. I might be an uncaffinated idiot who mixed up sites, but I can't even seem to find any coverage of the game and I'm pretty drat sure they at least did an article on it. And yeah, if they somehow decided to go with Hawaii ROPs and everything, that would make a lot more sense on where it ends up in some cases. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:That TessMark is indeed Tonga was only competitive with first gen Kepler, better than what they had but still miles behind: 
repiv fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Yeah, okay, 980 Ti it is for me. Sorry, AMD. It's weird. I consider myself someone who operates on a strict price/performance basis, and I've owned and used various Intel/AMD or AMD/Nvidia rigs in the past, but I don't feel good about going Intel/Nvidia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Yeah, okay, 980 Ti it is for me. Sorry, AMD. Don't feel bad you're about to have an awesome combo!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
I sure hope AMD can whip out some driver/bios magic in the next few weeks, for their sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I sure hope AMD can whip out some driver/bios magic in the next few weeks, for their sake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Would I have an easier time selling my G1 980s if I sold the cards and water blocks separately? Would I even be able to sell the blocks by themself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Would I have an easier time selling my G1 980s if I sold the cards and water blocks separately? Would I even be able to sell the blocks by themself? Water cooling enthusiasts are probably gonna all want ti's or titanx's. Id definitely part them out. If the g1 is a reference PCB then does the block work on 980's, ti's and x's?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
I mean, you shouldn't feel "bad" it's just a product. We as consumers are under no obligation to prop up inferior products. It sucks to think that AMD could be gone some day and Nvidia and Intel will be all there is, but there's not a lot we can do about it. I do think AMD will have good products in the future, but they are going to have a hell of a time getting to the future. I thought Fury/Fury X would be strong to at least partially offset the rebadge mess, but oh well. They will just have to weather the next year or so and be ready to fully revamp their product line with strong parts...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Part of it i think is setting expectations. I mean you want to hype your product but dont be unrealistic. Plus the whole telling 390x buyers they need 8gb for 4k and then telling fury x buyers that 4gb is enough. Also this "Fiji's use of HBM is a totally new thing and the driver modifications needed to properly manage 4GB of memory on a wider, but slower, memory bus are still being perfected. AMD told me this week that the driver would have to be tuned "for each game". This means that AMD needs to dedicate itself to this cause if it wants Fury X and the Fury family to have a nice, long, successful lifespan."
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I'm more hopeful about the form factors HBM will give us in the long run. The age of foot-long video cards should have been done long ago. Aye. I really want the Fury X2 to be worth it, because I love the idea of sticking a HBM powerhouse in an itx case and downsizing. If AMD can't make it viable, there's no incentive for Nvidia to do it with Pascal - aside from a new $3000 Titan Q or whatever the hell they call it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
In my opinion AMD introduced the new HBM stack in the wrong order - the high end card shouldn't have come so soon. Fury Nano or maybe Fury Not-X would have been a better introduction, and the 4GiB of VRAM easier to swallow, and then boom, throw out Fury X when DirectX 12/Vulkan hits its stride, and their drivers are no longer hamstringing the poo poo out of their cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Most cards fit in most itx cases anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:In my opinion AMD introduced the new HBM stack in the wrong order - the high end card shouldn't have come so soon. Fury Nano at a good price would have been a better product, and then boom, throw out Fury X when DirectX 12/Vulkan hits its stride, and their drivers are no longer hamstringing the poo poo out of their cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Yep. It isn't our responsibility to reward companies for simply existing, it isn't our fault AMD isn't competitive, it's AMDs. Nvidia already has a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
beejay posted:I mean, you shouldn't feel "bad" it's just a product. We as consumers are under no obligation to prop up inferior products. It sucks to think that AMD could be gone some day and Nvidia and Intel will be all there is, but there's not a lot we can do about it. Exactly. If you want to help support the company with bad market share, you time the market so you can buy a good product they make at a good price. Buying a product that doesn't make the most sense to you because of the brand is why the market is such a mess. HalloKitty posted:In my opinion AMD introduced the new HBM stack in the wrong order - the high end card shouldn't have come so soon. Fury Nano or maybe Fury Not-X would have been a better introduction, and the 4GiB of VRAM easier to swallow, and then boom, throw out Fury X when DirectX 12/Vulkan hits its stride, and their drivers are no longer hamstringing the poo poo out of their cards. That might have gone better, but they did have to worry about the 980 Ti poaching all their market share. They probably should have gone non-X first to get time for overvolt support though, decent OC could have brought it up to competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:09
|
|
xthetenth posted:Don't know. I might be an uncaffinated idiot who mixed up sites, but I can't even seem to find any coverage of the game and I'm pretty drat sure they at least did an article on it. It certainly looks like they did: http://techreport.com/review/28499/amd-radeon-fury-x-architecture-revealed
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:throw out Fury X when DirectX 12/Vulkan hits its stride, and their drivers are no longer hamstringing the poo poo out of their cards. Yeah about AMDs ground-up low-level driver path being their saving grace quote:Initially, I tested BF4 on the Radeons using the Mantle API, since it was available. Oddly enough, the Fury X's performance was kind of lackluster with Mantle, so I tried switching over to Direct3D for that card. Doing so boosted performance from about 32 FPS to 40 FPS. The results below for the Fury X come from D3D. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:That might have gone better, but they did have to worry about the 980 Ti poaching all their market share. Yeah, but what they've done now, they could have tested themselves in the labs before they let the cards out for review, and seen the future. The future where Fury X makes no difference to the 980 Ti's marketshare at all. repiv posted:Yeah about AMDs ground-up low-level driver path being their saving grace Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It certainly looks like they did: http://techreport.com/review/28499/amd-radeon-fury-x-architecture-revealed
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:22
|
|