|
What seems to be consistent is the minimum FPS for some games falling when overclocked. There must be some aggressive throttling going on. I'm not sure of the benchmarks after this:  There's no loving way a 960 should be within spitting distance of a 980ti.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:10 |
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:What seems to be consistent is the minimum FPS for some games falling when overclocked. There must be some aggressive throttling going on. Maybe someone typoed and it was supposed to say 980? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Maybe someone typoed and it was supposed to say 980? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:04
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:You would think, but there are independent 960/980 results with proper clocks and everything on this Firestrike bench: Hmmm, maybe that was supposed to be the 960 SLI? That would match up with the larger chart where 960 SLI comes in just under the Fury X. Anyway, we will see in 3.5 hours I guess. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
First review is out: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/1 Core voltage is indeed locked on the review drivers and there's no headroom on stock. Sounds sensible when you're against the best OC architecture since Sandy Bridge  Take your pick: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/69682-amd-r9-fury-x-review-fiji-arrives.html https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/ http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested https://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review,1.html repiv fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
repiv posted:First review is out: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/1 I ran through all the benchmarks and the trend seems to be consistently slower than the 980ti. Sometimes within 1% or slightly winning, and other times it is embarrassingly far behind:  E: The site is dying, but it seems to lose to the stock 980ti in literally every benchmark. Also the benchmark above I was mistakenly looking at the OC/nonreference 980ti, the stock one is a lot closer at higher resolutions 
BurritoJustice fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
repiv posted:First review is out: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/1 I wonder if drivers are magically going to make it  in the next week or two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:06
|
|
Seems like the 980 Ti is the clear winner over all when you take OCing into account, sad. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:I ran through all the benchmarks and the trend seems to be consistently slower than the 980ti. Sometimes within 1% or slightly winning, and other times it is embarrassingly far behind: You should check out the Tech Power Up review instead, it has a review with the same cards in each benchmark, and only reference cards, so it's not cluttered to gently caress. Performance per watt is increased by a fair amount, up to 30% or so. It brushes aside the bullshit people were spouting about the card needing the water cooler. It doesn't, but it's there as a showcase on how small the card can be made. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:You should check out the Tech Power Up review instead, it has a review with the same cards in each benchmark, and only reference cards, so it's not cluttered to gently caress. The most interesting part of the TPU review for me was that they encountered both pump noise and coil whine that combined to make more noise than the fan on the radiator. Overall they had the FuryX at 100% to the 980ti at 103% at 4K, with a much larger gap at lower resolutions. Given the lack of OC headroom on the Fury and the 30%+ headroom on the 980ti comparing to a non-reference design would be a far less close battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I wonder if drivers are magically going to make it AMD's starting to learn, this time they only hosed it for launch benchmarks, rather than the lifespan of the card.  gently caress's sake AMD. Hope the experience you guys got was worth it and the next gen is good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Well there you go, barring some miracle drivers, no reason to buy one over a 980ti. Hopefully they can find some niche for the non X and the nano.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:Given the lack of OC headroom on the Fury Yeah, what's up with that? The temps are low, but the results don't bear out the potential with overclocking. Although the architecture would clearly do well with some overclocking, as the chart from Guru3D shows:  That's only an overclock of 75MHz, yielding decent gains. As it stands, it's not a bad card all in all, and AMD have made some serious improvements, but this is clearly no 980 Ti killer. The 980 Ti simply overclocks too well for Fury X to have a chance. If Fury X started out with a price of $600, we'd be looking at a different story. A card that gets close to a 980 Ti, for a price that's a bit under that of a 980 Ti. It would be the correct marketing position for the card. At $650, though, you'd be crazy not to step on the overclocked 980 Ti bandwagon. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
beejay posted:Well there you go, barring some miracle drivers, no reason to buy one over a 980ti. Hopefully they can find some niche for the non X and the nano. Non-X being awesome is usually predicated on it OC'ing well. Hope they've got voltage control in the drivers by then. Incidentally WTF is with Project CARS in benchmarks without a disclaimer that it in no way represents any other game, and just averaging that poo poo in? It's unhelpful as hell. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
I was curious if they stepped up their tessellation game, but none of the reviews so far tested that. Anandtech always do but it seems they didn't get a review unit 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
The problems I see with OCing are that it draws a lot of power already and that AMD apparently locked the vcore, why do that unless bumping the vcore leads to some real problems and does not yield much in the way of gains? If it can OC well you let the reviewers do so and then shout about how it's a great OCer just like the 980 Ti is. I think that the CLC is on there because it needs it to achieve decent clocks without becoming a leaf-blower. EDIT: repiv posted:I was curious if they stepped up their tessellation game, but none of the reviews so far tested that. Anandtech always do but it seems they didn't get a review unit http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4 AVeryLargeRadish fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Lame that Linus card was doa
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
drat man feel like I've been waiting for this day for so long now and just woke up to a wet fart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
repiv posted:I was curious if they stepped up their tessellation game, but none of the reviews so far tested that. Anandtech always do but it seems they didn't get a review unit Anandtech does great reviews but since Anand left they aren't timely any more I guess wait for aftermarket and Fury non x reviews but it's looking like a 980ti for me as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Unless there's some magical driver update to unlock these cards for proper OC'ing I guess I'll wait it out with my 780 until 14/16nm with HBM2. It doesn't help that with the Canadian dollar sinking the 980ti/Fury X are around ~$850 before taxes. Makes me miss when I got my 6950 for $310 all in then immediately unlocking it to a 6970.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4 So it's been four years since AMD made the first accusation of nVidia exploiting their tessellation lead to gimp their cards, and they've still not fixed it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Rukus posted:Unless there's some magical driver update to unlock these cards for proper OC'ing I guess I'll wait it out with my 780 until 14/16nm with HBM2. It doesn't help that with the Canadian dollar sinking the 980ti/Fury X are around ~$850 before taxes. Makes me miss when I got my 6950 for $310 all in then immediately unlocking it to a 6970. Unlocked 6950 was a total gem. But for some reason a lot of people were buying Geforce 560 Ti instead, a 1GiB card that didn't have the same longevity. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:gently caress's sake AMD. Hope the experience you guys got was worth it and the next gen is good. I hope it is, but unfortunately, I can't wait that long any more. The game I play dropped a graphics upgrade last week and it runs like poo poo now on my overclocked 2x6950 (flashed to 6970  ) with everything maxed out (I was still getting min 40 fps before).I have a custom loop now, so cooling won't be a problem and the 980ti seems to overclock forever. So long, AMD, hopefully you'll do better when I upgrade again in 3-4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
I don't really understand the engineering that goes into GPUs, can someone explain why the Fury X OC's so poorly in language appropriate for a dullard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
^^^ Basically the higher the voltage, the more gradient there is to push a signal through a chip faster. Sometimes a chip has a good margin before voltage increases are needed, so it doesn't need to have it increased for a significant increase in speed, sometimes the wall's closer. The lower the voltage the lower the power consumption, so it can be a good thing to lower the voltage, and it looks like AMD has done that and not provided a way to increase it (yet?).repiv posted:I was curious if they stepped up their tessellation game, but none of the reviews so far tested that. Anandtech always do but it seems they didn't get a review unit Worst news all day if that's the case. Can't think of anyone else who does as high a level of technical analysis, and they tend to do follow up coverage, so they'd probably do voltage numbers when the voltage gets unlocked. All I want is 290 CF vs. Fury X and see if the CF falls apart first when you crank the memory. AVeryLargeRadish posted:The problems I see with OCing are that it draws a lot of power already and that AMD apparently locked the vcore, why do that unless bumping the vcore leads to some real problems and does not yield much in the way of gains? If it can OC well you let the reviewers do so and then shout about how it's a great OCer just like the 980 Ti is. I think that the CLC is on there because it needs it to achieve decent clocks without becoming a leaf-blower. Why would it ramp so much worse than Hawaii? That'd be interesting but very odd. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Captain Yossarian posted:I don't really understand the engineering that goes into GPUs, can someone explain why the Fury X OC's so poorly in language appropriate for a dullard? We don't really know how well the Fury X can OC, the drivers given to reviewers don't allow them to increase the voltages.  why AMD thought this was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
repiv posted:We don't really know how well the Fury X can OC, the drivers given to reviewers don't allow them to increase the voltages. Can't they hack the Gibson and do it anyway? E: Anandtech didn't get a review unit and Forbes did? 
Bleh Maestro fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Truga posted:I hope it is, but unfortunately, I can't wait that long any more. The game I play dropped a graphics upgrade last week and it runs like poo poo now on my overclocked 2x6950 (flashed to 6970 With some of the rumors flying around, I'm hoping AMD can generate enough revenue to stick around in 3-4 years...they haven't been doing so hot financially and really their only positives now are their GPUs and APUs. I really don't want to see them dig any deeper into the hole they're already in, that would suck 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:With some of the rumors flying around, I'm hoping AMD can generate enough revenue to stick around in 3-4 years...they haven't been doing so hot financially and really their only positives now are their GPUs and APUs. I really don't want to see them dig any deeper into the hole they're already in, that would suck Hopefully Zen's good, they put a lot into it and basically only left enough in graphics to make a card to stay ahead of tech. Honestly though tied at stock is not that awful an outcome, they just need to be able to overclock to match the Ti or at least be close. Wonder if it'll end like the 7970 vs 680 and 290X vs 780 Ti in the long run or if the 980 Ti can go the distance and is as good as it looks/ the Fury X can't go the distance. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Hopefully Zen's good, they put a lot into it and basically only left enough in graphics to make a card to stay ahead of tech. I thought that "Tied at the same price" was a really bad outcome for AMD, in order to get more than ~1/4 market share they need to outperform at same price. Within my own circle of friends, everybody defaults to nVIdia and most won't consider ATI unless they're a way better value. The rest won't consider ATI an option at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
This makes me incredibly happy for some reason and now I have even less regret about buying a 980 ti.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
^^^ It really shouldn't. Your performance doesn't change one bit, and the market is benefitted by competition.Twerk from Home posted:I thought that "Tied at the same price" was a really bad outcome for AMD, in order to get more than ~1/4 market share they need to outperform at same price. Within my own circle of friends, everybody defaults to nVIdia and most won't consider ATI unless they're a way better value. The rest won't consider ATI an option at all. Yeah, that's true. Forgot for a second that the market's actively seeking a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I thought that "Tied at the same price" was a really bad outcome for AMD, in order to get more than ~1/4 market share they need to outperform at same price. Within my own circle of friends, everybody defaults to nVIdia and most won't consider ATI unless they're a way better value. The rest won't consider ATI an option at all. This is pretty much how it is. if people bought GPU's purely on price/performance, AMD wouldn't have their market share tank like it did. AMD products are just viewed as cheap stuff you buy when you can't afford Intel and Nvidia. Their drivers are viewed as trash, their overall software suite is worse and their cards run hotter and louder than nV's stuff generally do. The 980 Ti being a god tier overclocker makes it that any enthusiast buying these GPU's will want to go with them anyway, there is no way in hell Fiji is overclocking anywhere near Maxwell does even if/when the voltage gets unlocked for the cards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
The fact they just scaled up GCN 1.2 is pretty disappointing too. They're still missing the DX12 FL 12_1 feature set, so future effects like voxel global illumination and raytraced shadows will run poorly compared to Maxwell xthetenth posted:Worst news all day if that's the case. Can't think of anyone else who does as high a level of technical analysis, and they tend to do follow up coverage, so they'd probably do voltage numbers when the voltage gets unlocked. False alarm, the Fury X appeared in Anandtechs benchmark database. They're just taking their sweet time finishing the write-up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Beautiful Ninja posted:This is pretty much how it is. if people bought GPU's purely on price/performance, AMD wouldn't have their market share tank like it did. AMD products are just viewed as cheap stuff you buy when you can't afford Intel and Nvidia. Their drivers are viewed as trash, their overall software suite is worse and their cards run hotter and louder than nV's stuff generally do. The 980 Ti being a god tier overclocker makes it that any enthusiast buying these GPU's will want to go with them anyway, there is no way in hell Fiji is overclocking anywhere near Maxwell does even if/when the voltage gets unlocked for the cards. This has definitely become the attitude among my group of friends, too; if the cards are at all in the same ballpark in terms of price/performance then we'll pick the NVIDIA option every time due to the perception that they have better driver/game support, a better multi-card implementation, G-SYNC seeming better than Freesync, NVIDIA having a nicer software suite with things like ShadowPlay and GameStream, and cards that use less power and are quieter / cooler. I was hoping that the Fury X would end up outperforming the 980 Ti at $650 in order to put some price pressure on NVIDIA but at this point it seems to not only perform worse in almost every 1080p/1440p benchmark but also suffers from all the aforementioned driver / crossfire / power issues as well. I really don't see how they are going to sell many Fury Xs at $650 outside of the "drivers/dx12 will fix it!" AMD-loyalist market. Even browsing /r/amd it seems like the only people there who are considering a Fury X after today's benchmarks are people who don't want to give money to NVIDIA because they are morally opposed to things like the GameWorks program. Parker Lewis fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
repiv posted:False alarm, the Fury X appeared in Anandtechs benchmark database. They're just taking their sweet time finishing the write-up. Reviewer came down with a virus apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Is the card actually getting released today still? Don't see it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
repiv posted:The fact they just scaled up GCN 1.2 is pretty disappointing too. They're still missing the DX12 FL 12_1 feature set, so future effects like voxel global illumination and raytraced shadows will run poorly compared to Maxwell Good, glad to see AT getting a review up, maybe they have a solid explanation for what's up with some of those performance numbers. I'm looking through the sweclockers numbers and there's stuff like it chilling between a 390X and a 980 in FC 4. It makes no sense for it to get outperformed by as 390X, so there's got to be some interesting bottleneck. Oh god, not the 960 flu. They still haven't done that review. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Bleh Maestro posted:Is the card actually getting released today still? Don't see it anywhere. It was on amazon briefly but sold out. Psuedo on topic, the MG279Q just came out in Aus and it is the exact same price as the XB270HU (1000AUD). The whole Freesync being cheaper thing hasn't really translated to the Aussie market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
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. I woke up hoping it'd be at least a little better across the board while winning heavily in some odd category or two but this isn't great. Could be worse I guess. I am digging the upbeat attitude from these review sites lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:50
|
|
