Fury X vs 980 TI - Reality

D

DracoNB

Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
599
980 TI came out 3 weeks ago

Fury X came out yesterday

Both cost $650ish and get similar FPS in most games (read more reviews than just [H])

Waterblock costs ~$100 for a 980, don't know if there are any for the 980 TI

So how exactly is the Fury X over priced? Similar performance, but already includes a waterblock so is much quieter and cooler - nice for those who live in hot areas as summer approaches.

Other benchmarks:

http://i.imgur.com/vxcvXLY.png
http://i.imgur.com/mjwpJuQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/Y5Z2Zuf.png
http://i.imgur.com/QocYqr5.png
http://i.imgur.com/R1BNr0o.png
http://i.imgur.com/qozP8YA.png
http://i.imgur.com/Io8q2so.png
http://i.imgur.com/CPCnUYB.png
Sources:
http://www.guru3d.com
http://hexus.net

So it is about even with the 980 TI performance wise, but includes a waterblock and is the same price and is a huge failure somehow? It gets much better FPS than the previous AMD card (290x), the 980 TI is also just a good card and much better value than the Titan.
 
The other side of that coin is they had to overclock it to the max (hence locked voltages) and add a watercooler just to keep the card operational @ those clocks and stay @ those clocks, just to meet (not exceed, just meet) the performance of the 980Ti.
 
The problem is this:

index.php

index.php
 
The biggest con is the eventual vram limitation of it only being 4gb. No way i would per chase a 4gb card for 650 bucks. If it made no difference, then why did those idiots double the vram on all the 300 series re badges
 
They were forced to user water to allow it to run at that speed because it is already overclocked.
The 980ti is faster without water and will overclock way more than the fury, still without water.
If you put the 980ti under water, it would be amusing :)

Also the 4GB ram for a 4K card.
The lack of HDMI 2.0 for a 4K card.
No DL DVI for many 1440p monitor owners.

Its a poor show.
 
Right now we have, without a doubt, the absolute worst GPU line-up in AMD's history. Across the board, top to bottom.
Every single AMD card on the market needs a price cut.

I'm not angry, I'm not going to say "AMD deserves it", I'm not going to "drink fanboy tears" or whatever else people are doing -- it's just sad. A huge disappointment for everyone in PC gaming.

The only thing more disappointing than AMD's current offerings are the amount of people celebrating AMD's failure. But now I'm going off topic.
 
primetime said:
The biggest con is the eventual vram limitation of it only being 4gb. No way i would per chase a 4gb card for 650 bucks. If it made no difference, then why did those idiots double the vram on all the 300 series re badges
Click to expand...
Because they gave users twice the ram, better coolers at a cheaper price? Thats a bad thing? Its also GDDR5 vs HBM, night and day difference.
 
Igroock said:
Because they gave users twice the ram, better coolers at a cheaper price? Thats a bad thing? Its also GDDR5 vs HBM, night and day difference.
Click to expand...

If by cheaper price you mean raised the price over what both 4gb and 8gb 290 variants were already selling for?
 
Kardonxt said:
If by cheaper price you mean raised the price over what both 4gb and 8gb 290 variants were already selling for?
Click to expand...

No...I am talking about the 290x 8GB variant price which cost $475+ when they were being sold.
 
DracoNB said:
Waterblock costs ~$100 for a 980, don't know if there are any for the 980 TI
Click to expand...
Moved the NZXT G10 + Corsair H75 from my GTX 780 to my GTX 980 Ti for a grand-total of $0. I really do love the versatility of this little bracket :D

Dunno about you guys, but I almost-immediately rip the stock cooler off all the high-end cards I buy and replace them with better kit. Including a giant AIO cooler offers no value to me personally, and is just wasted packaging as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, I'd really love to see OEMs start offering the option of buying a bare card (no cooler) for $20 cheaper...

DracoNB said:
So it is about even with the 980 TI performance wise, but includes a waterblock and is the same price and is a huge failure somehow?
Click to expand...
The 980 Ti doesn't need a water-block to match the Fury X on performance, though... Why would I get a card that needs such outrageous cooling in a STOCK configuration, to keep STOCK clocks working?
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
The 980 Ti doesn't need a water-block to beat the Fury X on performance, though... Why would I get a card that needs such outrageous cooling in a STOCK configuration?
Click to expand...
AMD really screwed up launching the Fury X first.
Watercooler makes it too expensive, and we see comments like this being repeated constantly even though they are decisively false.

Fury X doesn't NEED a water cooler any more than the 980 Ti Hybrid.

How can people keep repeating this nonsense over and over and over on this forum, I am convinced you are trolling.
 
Why are people proud of marginalized performance? Why must their be an army of excuses for a poor product?

1.) The Fury X is WC'ed for a reason
2.) The 980Ti's can be safely OC'ed to perform 10-20% better then whats represented in current benchmarks.
3.) This does not bode well for an Air-cooled Fury X
4.) This is not how you gain market share
5.) Everyone pontificating this into a success for AMD are sorely mistaken

I want to see competition, i want to see a better AMD product, no amount of banner waving and water carrying can fix what AMD is doing wrong. Buying the inferior product only compounds the problem.

AMD is destine to follow in the footsteps of their CPU division and go from great to insignificant in the span of 4 years, the same fan boys will be clinging onto that sinking ship.

ETA: This is how the AMD CPU's died a legion of fan boys being slowly ground down by failed after failed launch of sub-standard products compounded by destruction of perceived value of the AMD brand leading up to the eventual "junk-status" award given to their CPU's now. Through these 4 years there were plenty of "oh well it has a better price/performance" "Oh its the underdog" "we need competition!!" all that clamoring and AMD still dropped the ball.

Wake up AMD and sell to a company that actually has money to boost R&D or you going to be getting lapped by your rivals
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Fury X doesn't NEED a water cooler any more than the 980 Ti Hybrid.
Click to expand...
Then why isn't there an air-cooled Fury X on the market? There are plenty of air-cooled 980 Ti's, so they obviously don't need water... but not a single air-cooled Fury X.
 
Alex A. said:
Why are people proud of marginalized performance? Why must their be an army of excuses for a poor product?

1.) The Fury X is WC'ed for a reason
2.) The 980Ti's can be safely OC'ed to perform 10-20% better then whats represented in current benchmarks.
3.) This does not bode well for an Air-cooled Fury X
4.) This is not how you gain market share
5.) Everyone pontificating this into a success for AMD are sorely mistaken

I want to see competition, i want to see a better AMD product, no amount of banner waving and water carrying can fix what AMD is doing wrong. Buying the inferior product only compounds the problem.
Click to expand...

Everything is marginalized now, its not only performance that sells, although performance is a major factor and probably the most important factor. You are correct though with your points.
 
DracoNB said:
includes a waterblock so is much quieter and cooler - nice for those who live in hot areas as summer approaches.
Click to expand...

well it's not going to heat up a room any less just because it has a water cooler, but yeah at least the card will run cooler and not suffer any ill effects from high temps.

but overall the card's TDP isn't that much more than a 980 Ti anyway.
 
Unknown-One said:
Then why isn't there an air-cooled Fury X on the market? There are plenty of air-cooled 980 Ti's, so they obviously don't need water... but not a single air-cooled Fury X.
Click to expand...
When your GPU is expensive to produce but doesn't really match the competition for the same price, the easiest solution is to make it SFF and slap a cheap water-cooler on it for added value. They did it to soak up as many early adopter sales as possible. Tell me how AMD should cool a 6-inch 280W card on air...?

Also there's a logical fallacy in your post somewhere; just because there are no air cooled models on the market does not mean Fury X 'requires' water. Fury will be air-cooled and comes out in 3 weeks.
I'm not sure I can tolerate another 3 weeks of this forum's bullshit.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
AMD really screwed up launching the Fury X first.
Watercooler makes it too expensive, and we see comments like this being repeated constantly even though they are decisively false.

Fury X doesn't NEED a water cooler any more than the 980 Ti Hybrid.

How can people keep repeating this nonsense over and over and over on this forum, I am convinced you are trolling.
Click to expand...


I think it does, if this card didn't have water cooling the temps of the chip would be much higher and this in turn will affect the amount of power needed for this card, actually that would be an interesting study to really see how efficient Fury X's architecture will be if it used air cooling instead. We can probably guesstimate based on leakage vs power usage and heat formulas though, but leakage formula's change based on the chip I think if memory servers.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...qfRUDFsLWXlGYLRJTtoF4gA&bvm=bv.96782255,d.eXY
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
When your GPU is expensive to produce but doesn't really match the competition for the same price, the easiest solution is to make it SFF and slap a cheap water-cooler on it for added value. They did it to soak up as many early adopter sales as possible.
Click to expand...
So they were worried an air-cooled version would make a poor showing (because an air cooler can't really handle the heat without excessive core-throttling).

Right, the Fury X needs water to perform, got it...
 
Unknown-One said:
So they were worried an air-cooled version would make a poor showing (because an air cooler can't really handle the heat without excessive core-throttling).
Click to expand...
C'mon, you know a 275W card doesn't require water. You know it and I know you know it.
There are dozens of cards exceeding 275W using air coolers on the market right now.

290, 290X, 390, 390X even the overclocked Titan X's and 980 Ti's. These are all air cooled and use more power than the FX.
What kind of game are you playing here?
 
Alex A. said:
Why are people proud of marginalized performance? Why must their be an army of excuses for a poor product?

1.) The Fury X is WC'ed for a reason
2.) The 980Ti's can be safely OC'ed to perform 10-20% better then whats represented in current benchmarks.
3.) This does not bode well for an Air-cooled Fury X
4.) This is not how you gain market share
5.) Everyone pontificating this into a success for AMD are sorely mistaken

I want to see competition, i want to see a better AMD product, no amount of banner waving and water carrying can fix what AMD is doing wrong. Buying the inferior product only compounds the problem.

AMD is destine to fallow in the footsteps of their CPU division and go from great to insignificant in the span of 4 years, the same fan boys will be clinging onto that sinking ship.
Click to expand...


i agree, i think AMD screwed the pooch on this one. it almost feels like they're relying too heavily on the DX12 changes to boost their performance which is why i think they're justifying the 4GB of vram for people that run crossfire and gaining the full 8GB pool of vram instead of the current shared vram. along with the built in mantel support. i mean i hope DX12 fixes a lot of the things we're seeing but i don't think it really will.

we kinda knew this was going to happen anyways for this year. i'll give em props for being ballsy enough to use the first iteration of HBM though just like they did with GDDR4 and GDDR5 and we all saw what that eventually became so theres still light at the end of the tunnel. maybe 16nm will be their saving grace or it'll just hammer the final nail in the coffin. all we can do is wait and see.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
C'mon, you know a 275W card doesn't require water. You know it and I know you know it.
There are dozens of cards exceeding 275W using air coolers on the market right now.

290, 290X, 390, 390X even the overclocked Titan X's and 980 Ti's. These are all air cooled and use more power than the FX.
What kind of game are you playing here?
Click to expand...


Thats what you don't get, its 275 watts because of the water cooling, :), if the temperature of the chip was higher it would use more power.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
C'mon, you know a 275W card doesn't require water. You know it and I know you know it.
There are dozens of cards exceeding 275W using air coolers on the market right now.

290, 290X, 390, 390X even the overclocked Titan X's and 980 Ti's. These are all air cooled and use more power than the FX.
What kind of game are you playing here?
Click to expand...

I remember the 290/290X being met with much criticism due to being hot and loud. I doubt AMD wants to relive those days.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
C'mon, you know a 275W card doesn't require water. You know it and I know you know it.
Click to expand...
That depends on the temperature required to make the clockspeed you want to run stable. AMD has clocked these cores fairly-near their limit...

Cooler chips tend to maintain higher clocks better, remember? Keeping the Fury X cooler than the competition allows them a clockspeed advantage they wouldn't have on an air cooler, and you can bet they've tried to take advantage of that fact.

It's netburst all over again. Chill the chip, clock it sky-high, and hope for the best.

TaintedSquirrel said:
There are dozens of cards exceeding 275W using air coolers on the market right now.
Click to expand...
They aren't reference-clocked near the physical limits of their chips/architectures... no need for extreme cooling to make 100% sure that they remain stable.

Put simply (exaggerated example, for clarity):
A 275w card that can maintain its reference clock of 900 MHz up to 80c = fine for air cooling
A 275w card that can maintain its reference clock of 1000 MHz up to 50c = problem for air cooling
 
Last edited:
jwcalla said:
I remember the 290/290X being met with much criticism due to being hot and loud. I doubt AMD wants to relive those days.
Click to expand...
Deja vu.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041688276&postcount=26
TaintedSquirrel said:
If they put a blower on there instead, you'd be whining about AMD's inferior reference design, "Oh why didn't they use something better? Water would be fantastic." -- In an alternate universe. People have spent the last 3 weeks whining about the 980 Ti's blower. People just need to accept that they will never be satisfied with what AMD does.
Click to expand...
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
AMD really screwed up launching the Fury X first.
Watercooler makes it too expensive, and we see comments like this being repeated constantly even though they are decisively false.

Fury X doesn't NEED a water cooler any more than the 980 Ti Hybrid.

How can people keep repeating this nonsense over and over and over on this forum, I am convinced you are trolling.
Click to expand...

you asked the same in another thread, this is the answer I gave...

They wouldnt use a water cooler unless they absolutely needed it because of cost, inconvenience and restrictions.
So it must be needed.

Put an air cooler on it and it will be 20 to 30C hotter at the same speeds, this would make it unstable unless clocks were lowered substantially.
It needs to be that cool to achieve the high clock speeds.
 
Nenu said:
They wouldnt use a water cooler unless they absolutely needed it because of cost, inconvenience and restrictions.
So it must be needed.

Put an air cooler on it and it will be 20 to 30C hotter at the same speeds, this would make it unstable unless clocks were lowered substantially.
It needs to be that cool to achieve the high clock speeds.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Somebody else sees it...
 
There's some 6 heatpipes air coolers that make gpu core contact on only 3 of them, those would be great for Fury since it's core is much wider.

is the 980 ti unstable at 85C ? no GTFO! TY
 
Kardonxt said:
Back to OP. Why does everyone think Hardocp is trying to hate on AMD / Fury intentionally and releasing cherry picked benchmarks? They praised the hell out of the r9 290 if you guys forgot already.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/11/04/amd_radeon_r9_290_video_card_review/9#.VYx_KvlVhBc
Click to expand...

No one who isn't butthurt or in denial thinks [H] is hating on them. This is [H]ard forum - we deal in [H]ard facts and [H]ard truths. This isn't [H]opes and dreams forum; or ifs and buts forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I haven't seen yet is someone slowing down the fan speed on the radiator until the card is running at or close to the 75C limit. Then we could see if that much heat is affecting performance, if it throttles like a choked chicken or even if it craps out completely. The Rage (non X) variant that is coming is supposed to come with reduced clocks. There must be a significant reason these cards are clocked and cooled like they are. My bet is they are just about maxed out both on temps and voltage and the water cooling was needed to push the Rage X to is present speed.
 
Direfox said:
What I haven't seen yet is someone slowing down the fan speed on the radiator until the card is running at or close to the 75C limit. Then we could see if that much heat is affecting performance, if it throttles like a choked chicken or even if it craps out completely. The Rage (non X) variant that is coming is supposed to come with reduced clocks. There must be a significant reason these cards are clocked and cooled like they are. My bet is they are just about maxed out both on temps and voltage and the water cooling was needed to push the Rage X to is present speed.
Click to expand...
The fan runs around 900 RPM @ 50C.
You could probably pull the fan off and barely reach 75C.

To artifically reach thermal limits, you would have to isolate the rad somewhere to retain heat.
 
Dayaks said:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review
The 980ti is:
9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
faster

Not sure if I'd call 9% a "sound beating" but it's significant. BIOs mod (takes 5 minutes) the 980ti and the gap would increase.

[H]'s review shows similar margin.

What turns me off the most about the Fury X is the frame times. If you look at 99 percentile the Fury X is actually worse than a 980.
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/14

That and the Fury X seems pretty hot. Not that I'd care if I could put a full cover block on it and overvolt it for significant gains. That is to be seen. Specifically the 89C on the PCIe slot on the mobo:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-8.html
:eek:
Click to expand...
^ what I wrote in a different thread. Didn't feel like typing it again.

To say the Fury X runs cool is misleading... it's hot for an AIO. And as we already know the VRMs and PCIe slot (wtf?) are pretty much maxed at stock.
 
I think we can safely bet on no major change in overclocking even if voltage control is release. The card runs cool as is and I'm sure AMD did not want to release a card that couldn't beat the 980ti at the same price if it could help it. Another 100-200mhz would have made all the difference in the world for their launch reviews.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
In regular gaming tests, the entire setup -- front, back, and radiator -- runs between 50C and 60C. The peak PCI-E temp came from a torture test which I assume is fuzzy donut or compute.

Guru3D uses a more distinctive color system:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,12.html
Click to expand...

They measured the plastic shroud which doesn't conduct heat that well. Take the shroud off, and those VRM hits 100C plus. The Air inside must be 100 degrees as well. I'm not surprised XFX cancelled their lifetime warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top