You never bought video cards based on playing games?
What do you use your video card for then?
He just likes the way they look. A modern art masterpiece to be put on display.
[H] needs to start taking sweet 16 glamor shots of gpu's for Flopper
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You never bought video cards based on playing games?
What do you use your video card for then?
You never bought video cards based on playing games?
What do you use your video card for then?
He just likes the way they look. A modern art masterpiece to be put on display.
[H] needs to start taking sweet 16 glamor shots of gpu's for Flopper
You never bought video cards based on playing games?
What do you use your video card for then?
so I guess my crossfire 290's will be able to last me a bit longer eh?
You have been shown proof multiple times where less than 4GB matters.
I can show it to you again if you like, but I dont think it will help you.
You either struggle reading, understanding or have something wrong up top.
As such, what you say has limited value.
Fury is not neck and neck with the 980ti, it was soundly beaten.
If you wish to contradict this, provide direct evidence so it can be scrutinised.
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
Not sure why you're upset when you know that in this case the 980 Ti has come out as a clear winner.
4GB was never going to be future proof when you have titles such as GTA 5 consuming 5.7 Gigs on a GTX TitanX.
The apples to apples 4k page:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/9#.VYspS0Zuxrg
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt: The Fury X is 36% faster than the Radeon R9 290X.
GTAV: R9 Fury X is 45% faster than the R9 290X.
Dying Light: R9 Fury X is 27% faster than R9 290X.
Far Cry 4: The R9 Fury X is 38% faster than R9 290X.
BF4: R9 Fury X is 38% faster than the R9 290X.
Based on these titles, 36.4% faster on average. By ~40% I meant I was just approximating based on a cursory glance.
Have you dropped the 4GB issue?Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
Have you dropped the 4GB issue?
As shown above, Fury struggles to keep up with the 980ti.
Check the [H] review as well, same story.
It receives a sound beating because it loses most tests, some hugely.
In the small number of wins for the Fury, it is only just faster.
Worse, it is not a huge overclocker as promised and is even more soundly beat by a clocked 980ti, while using more power.
It doesnt get better minimum fps, the frame times show its not as smooth....
I can go on
Just ordered 980 Ti today waiting on this review just an FYI the Zotac 980Ti is 10 bucks off got it for 639 and no tax from Newegg!! I have amazon prime but 50 bucks tax so I spent the tax on next day delivery from the egg 25 bones. YAY go me
If you check more than the [H] review you'll see the Fury beating the 980ti at 4k. I mean, even in the [H] review, which has the worse results for the Fury, it is only 5% behind the 980ti at 4k.
Dude you need to get shop-runner it is free two day shipping and I have not paid them a penny for the 2years I have used shop-runner.
(I never even gave them my credit card info, it boggles the mind as to how that company still exists)
2 day does not help me I want to play with it this weekend.
Thent
If you check more than the [H] review you'll see the Fury beating the 980ti at 4k. I mean, even in the [H] review, which has the worse results for the Fury, it is only 5% behind the 980ti at 4k.
I think the Fury X would be a worthy card if the price was 75-100 USD cheaper than it is now.
This 100%. If the air fury is not cut and costs $550 that is a pretty good card, but the 4gb hard limit is still there.
For 4K maybe, anything less than that you are better off with a GTX 980.This 100%. If the air fury is not cut and costs $550 that is a pretty good card, but the 4gb hard limit is still there.
For 4K maybe, anything less than that you are better off with a GTX 980.
AMD has specifically positioned this card to compete at 4K and it actually fails everywhere else. The $550 Fury will also fail below 4K, even if it's still a full Fiji XT.
Are there really enough 4K gamers right now to justify a card like this? I don't think so but then again I'm also a bitter 1080p gamer.
Consider overclocking and the Fury loses by 10-20% at 1440p and lower.A $550 Fury vs a $500 980. The fury wins hands down.
4k this generation is a marketing gimmick imho.
Consider overclocking and the Fury loses by 10-20% at 1440p and lower.
Really? Against an overclocked 980? Could you link it in? That is just insane.
A used 980 can be bought for $400.
I think the Fury X would be a worthy card if the price was 75-100 USD cheaper than it is now.
Show me this sound beating at 4k. All benches show neck and neck. Try harder.
Not sure why you're upset when you know that in this case the 980 Ti has come out as a clear winner.
4GB was never going to be future proof when you have titles such as GTA 5 consuming 5.7 Gigs on a GTX TitanX.
1st Wrong! They are sold out everywhere... the card is in the right price and it comes with wc.
2nd You should wait for new drivers. 390x "290x" almost 3 year old card is currently trading blow with GTX980. and the best part is Fury X trading blows with Titan X and 980ti. what do you think is going to happen when they release better drivers?
3rd HBM is not fancy, is actually new tech thats why Nvidia wants yo use it...
4th stop being a fanboy, they aren't paying you right?
Here it is again. Twice in 5 minutes from 2 different people.1: The card comes with a liquid cooler because it NEEDS a liquid cooler to run at the "stock" clock speeds.
Here it is again. Twice in 5 minutes from 2 different people.
Can you prove that?
Because the card is using about 20W less than the 290X and significantly less than something like the MSI 390X and all of those are air-cooled.
The power results are right here in the exact review you're responding to.
http://hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/10#.VYx8h0bIbCM
Here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/21
I'm thinking this is 4k AA whereas most sites did non AA
You have to compare the white line to the black - because the fury X doesn't o/c worth
a damn! I am seeing >20% in about half the games.
What's worse, in comparison to the 8 GB 390x, it loses to in in Crysis and is <10% better
with a handful more. BTW, that 390x was NOT overclocked.
In fairness, this is sometimes misleading when review sites post VRAM consumption. It would only validate it if they could see performance degradation with less vram. I am by no means a guru, but are these cards with insane frame buffers "oversampling" in some of these tests?
The AMD blindness is strong in this one
Here are the 4K % difference results from [H] presented as positive = 980ti win:
4% --- Witcher 3
10% - GTA V
13% - Dying Light
-6% -- FC4
7% --- BF4
Almost a clear knockout.
These are with stock cards, no overclock.
Add 20 approx to each of those % figures to compare overclocks.
Some 980ti cards can take that to +30 !!