Quote: There were times leading up to this heavyweight championship bout that we really thought Fury X would pull off the win. And to their credit, niggles with drivers and hardware sampling notwithstanding, Fury X gives a decent showing. But those hoping to see the “underdog” AMD pull off an upset and surpass the Titan X, never mind the identically priced GTX 980 Ti, are going to have to wait and see how things develop going forward.

We can’t help but feel that there’s plenty of room left to improve Fury X performance with driver updates. It has 33 percent more memory bandwidth than the already well-fed 390X, and shader computational performance should be up to 45 percent faster than the 390X. We’re also not looking at situations where we’re CPU limited or VRAM capacity limited, so why then does the Fury X only average 18.5 percent faster than 390X across all of our tests? Like we said: drivers.

The Fiji architecture is the first new high performance architecture for AMD since fall of 2013. (We don't count Tonga, as it was effectively a lateral move from Tahiti.) AMD has had plenty of time to improve their drivers on the Hawaii architecture, but Fiji changes the playing field. Not only does it sport a third more shaders, but it also has a different memory subsystem to contend with. 512GB/s of bandwidth is all well and good, but if latencies and other elements have changed compared to GDDR5—and they almost certainly have—previous “best practice” driver code from AMD may no longer be properly tuned.

It wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened to AMD, either; AMD discovered more than a year after the launch of Tahiti that they had missed out on a lot of potential performance. Their “frame pacing” driver optimizations helped to improve both the smoothness of the gaming experience as well as performance in general, but even after determining there was work to be done it was nearly a year before the second “frame pacing driver” was released to the public. Hopefully AMD can improve Fiji performance much more quickly, and if so they may actually come out on top—provided you don’t need more than 4GB VRAM.
...
It takes grit to enter the ring against the reigning heavyweight champion, and Fury X managed to land a few solid punches in the early going. As the match progressed, however, 980 Ti proved to have more stamina and legs. This one didn’t come down to a split decision, and there was little in the way of referee controversy; Fury X just wasn’t quite ready for the belt. It’s a product with plenty of guts, but it also has some bad habits picked up in the amateur ranks. With additional training in the form of drivers, Fury X could come back as a force to be reckoned with. The question is whether that will be in a few weeks, months, or possibly it will take so long that 980 Ti and Titan X will be replaced by even more formidable hardware. We’ll be in line for tickets as soon as a rematch is announced, though we still have reservations about Fury’s 4GB glass chin.

(06-24-2015, 07:23 PM)gstanford Wrote: Well, the reviews are flowing in and Fury X can only roughly match 980 Ti at best.  hardocp was scathing about 4K and Fury X, deservedly so IMO.

Fury X is a card that the AMD diehards will purchase, but not many other people in the end.  It isn't going to solve AMD's marketshare woes.  AMD's 300 series ends up being a sows ear doing its best (but still flawed) impersonation of a silk purse.

(06-25-2015, 03:47 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote: Based on reviews I'm seeing all over the place it is a dead heat. Price and Performance.

(06-25-2015, 03:47 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote: Based on reviews I'm seeing all over the place it is a dead heat. Price and Performance.

Title should be changed that they are equal.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Launched, Independent Benchmarks, HBM Put To the Test

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X performed very well in the benchmarks, and remained competitive with a similarly priced, reference NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, but it wasn't a clear win. Generally speaking, the Fury X was the faster of the two cards at 2560x1440. With the resolution cranked up to 3840x2160, however, the Fury X and 980 Ti trade victories.

(06-25-2015, 06:24 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Perhaps you should moderate Rollo.

(06-25-2015, 03:47 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote: Based on reviews I'm seeing all over the place it is a dead heat. Price and Performance.

Title should be changed that they are equal.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Launched, Independent Benchmarks, HBM Put To the Test

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X performed very well in the benchmarks, and remained competitive with a similarly priced, reference NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, but it wasn't a clear win. Generally speaking, the Fury X was the faster of the two cards at 2560x1440. With the resolution cranked up to 3840x2160, however, the Fury X and 980 Ti trade victories.

(06-25-2015, 09:52 AM)ocre Wrote: Even it is was true. Even if furyX was exactly equal to the reference 980ti, what kind of splash is that? They are the same price!!!!

This card should have been priced cheaper, 600$ at the most. And that would still not be all that impressive.

You have to have something compelling.............AMD just has.................. something

(06-25-2015, 11:39 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote:

(06-25-2015, 09:52 AM)ocre Wrote: Even it is was true.  Even if furyX was exactly equal to the reference 980ti, what kind of splash is that?  They are the same price!!!!

This card should have been priced cheaper, 600$ at the most. And that would still not be all that impressive.  

You have to have something compelling.............AMD just has.................. something

I'm sure it will come down in price. Better to have at least a duopoly than a monopoly.

(06-25-2015, 04:52 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-25-2015, 11:39 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote:

(06-25-2015, 09:52 AM)ocre Wrote: Even it is was true.  Even if furyX was exactly equal to the reference 980ti, what kind of splash is that?  They are the same price!!!!

This card should have been priced cheaper, 600$ at the most. And that would still not be all that impressive.  

You have to have something compelling.............AMD just has.................. something

I'm sure it will come down in price. Better to have at least a duopoly than a monopoly.

There's been monopoly in the CPU market for 9 years now, and I have to say the 4790K and 4690 I bought for $340 and $220 last year are the best processors I've ever had. (by far) intel knows that no sane person is buying a FX cpu, and yet year after year they turn out great cpus for very reasonable prices.

If (when) AMD leaves the desktop pc market, NVIDIA and intel will keep advancing the tech and selling it to us at prices people are willing to pay because they have to keep the lights on and pay the stockholders.

They can't just say,"Haha! Our new card will run all games at 4K! AMD has nothing, they will cost $3000!" because people would just laugh and play at 1080p for the most part.

(06-25-2015, 08:43 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: There isn't just two car manufacturers.

(06-26-2015, 05:52 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-25-2015, 08:43 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: There isn't just two car manufacturers.

I assume you meant "card"

(06-26-2015, 05:57 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote:

(06-26-2015, 05:52 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(06-25-2015, 08:43 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: There isn't just two car manufacturers.

I assume you meant "card"

No I meant car as in automobiles.

Quote:In the end, there are a number of people suffering due to this massive demonstration of incompetence to implement decent quality assurance. There’s AMD, its partners that just buy these graphics cards from AMD after having them labeled and packaged in China, as well as the stores and the customers.

Looking at the first of AMD’s emails that we quoted at the beginning, it’s pretty clear by now that the “very small batch” was, at best, an understatement. We’ve contacted some of AMD’s partners directly to ask them if they are aware of the problem and willing to do spot checks. We also wanted to know how they are handling cards that customers found to be defective and if they have stopped delivering affected cards to stores.

We’d first like to note that all of AMD’s partners told us the exact same thing. We’re not reporting their names, since this information was mainly given by the R&D departments of the companies in question, and there haven’t been, and most probably won’t be, any official statements. This isn’t much of a problem, since the main message was that all of the spot checks yielded graphics cards with the same pump problem, even though its severity varied. None of AMD’s partners are planning to return the cards directly to AMD at this point for a variety of reasons and to avoid ending up on AMD’s bad side.

The good news is that AMD will apparently reimburse its partners for any losses suffered due to customers actually returning their graphics cards. Is this a ploy to sell at least part of the affected stock, because some customers aren’t that sensitive to noise and others don’t want to go to the trouble of an RMA? This would limit the financial damages, of course. However, it might still lead to undesirable results due to the damages to AMD’s and its partners' images. It’s questionable if the financial gain is worth it.


Ending On A High Note

We’ve been able to ascertain that there will be AMD Radeon R9 Fury X graphics cards with quiet pumps. Ultimately, the problem was found and fixed. The new revision won’t be identifiable by just looking at the package, though. It also stands to reason that everybody will first try to get rid of their old defective cards before pushing out the new ones. AMD could really have helped this situation by putting its foot down at the first sign of trouble. Then again, taking the high road does have to be financially feasible first. In spite of everything having been cleared up, a bad aftertaste remains.
...
What advice can we give to our readers interested in an AMD Radeon R9 Fury X? Wait or play the lottery? It’s important that AMD has apparently guaranteed that it will pay for RMA-related losses and has started doing so. The partners certainly hope that not all of the graphics cards end up back with them, though. People outside of Europe tend to care less about noise levels, which might explain why AMD chose to take this route. However, it’s not exactly great for the company's image.

The Radeon R9 Fury X and its cooling solution can’t be dismissed outright as an upgrade due to its acceptable performance. This wouldn’t be fair for the quiet cooling solution that might well be available soon.

From our point of view, Cooler Master and the OEMs it hired are responsible for this failure. Norms need to be adhered to and executed, especially if you proudly display certificates. We’re sure that AMD will get its money back from these companies, since these kinds of things are always subject to air-tight contract clauses in this business.

Quote:AMD aims Fury at 4K gaming. Technically, it's capable. But the company is disingenuous in suggesting the card can handle that resolution with Ultra detail settings. While it is true that you can play some games at those settings, you won't enjoy the frame rates most enthusiasts want to see. It'd be more accurate to say that Fury is capable of 4K at medium settings, even if it doesn't sound as sexy.

I really like Sapphire’s Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X. The cooling solution's slow-spinning fans get the job done without making much noise at all. There's quite a bit of thermal headroom available if you want to manually dial in faster fan speeds, too. Sapphire’s team does a great job making the card look great, while keeping the substantial heat of AMD’s Fiji GPU at bay. The mild overclock is a nice touch.

Fury represents AMD’s return to high-end gaming. But it's far better suited for 2560x1440 than 4K. In almost every test, Sapphire’s R9 Fury Tri-X outperformed Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 980. Even at reference clock rates it's able to keep up. Fury fits nicely between the GTX 980 and 980 Ti in both power and cost.

(07-12-2015, 09:08 AM)googoo24 Wrote: Non X Fury is a much better buy.

(07-12-2015, 10:36 PM)SickBeast Wrote: It actually seems like cards like this are actually CPU limited if you game at 1080p.  We need faster CPUs to make GPUs like this practical.

(07-12-2015, 10:05 PM)ocre Wrote:

(07-12-2015, 09:08 AM)googoo24 Wrote: Non X Fury is a much better buy.

i agree.

It is not an upgrade for me.  But this is the card to get.  currently,
Fury > FuryX

(07-13-2015, 12:12 AM)ocre Wrote: I said. Fury > fury X

If you are wanting to get a Fiji,  in my opinion Fury non X looks to be a better buy.

As for the 980ti,

It's definitely a win over fury X.  Currently it is the best card, hands down.

if we are throwing nvidia in the mix, AMD has a huge problem.  The non X fury edges out a stock 980 but is priced well above it.  The fury non x is about as fast as a vendor overclocked 980, which is cheaper.  But I wouldn't even waste money on those models.  Any gtx980 will run at those 980OC speeds.  Even a reference vanilla 980.  These cards are less than 500$ right now.  Once overclocked, they will best the fury performance.  

When the nano comes out, i think it will be clear that these fury cards are pretty much factory OC chips with little head room above.  That AMD has them running out of its sweet spot and this is why the power consumption is high.  Because it is high for gpu with HBM.  After doing a little research, I was kind of shocked to find out how much power gddr5 cost.  And it is not the ram that is expensive.  HBM modules are less power hungry than gddr5 but that is not very significant.  The bus though, they account for a huge chunk of tdp.  Like 50watts!!!

That is huge.  

Just imagine shaving off 50watts

Anyway, nano is supposed to be way less power hungry. It will be clocked in the sweet zone where performance per watt is at its best.  I believe that nvidia has their maxwell chips running in their sweet zones and this is why there is so much overclocking room left.

I admit, all that is speculation.  But surely anyone can see that nvidia could release an updated gm204, one with a speed bump to match the fury air cooled right out of the box.  This updated card would use less power still but really, no one needs to wait for such a card.

Right now, the 980 exist.  See, even the vanilla 980s are capable of serious overclocking.  Nvidia gave the 980 a overclocking software a whopping 125% power offset.  This is really large.  See, boost is determined by the power draw and temp.  I have never seen it go anywhere near 125% even clocked at 1450mhz.

That is the thing.  My reference 980 clocks easily runs 1450mhz boost clocks locked all day long.  This is with my fan on auto and on every game I got.  I just stopped, it might be able to run higher.  But at 1450mhz, it gives up to 20% more performance.  
That is without touching voltages or any mods.  What is even more shocking, my closed loop lq320 is louder than my 980 OC when gaming.  This is not a loud cooler, it's just that my 980 OC is not loud.

I have the reference blower.

The fury non x doesn't look great compared to a vendor OC 980.  Reference 980s can reach those vendor OC clocks and beyond.  
So, I can't even say a fury is even a better buy than a 980.  But at least on this one, it does beat the stock 980 it competes with.  OC vs OC, I don't see how it could win.  I am sure it won't.

So, pay more for less performance?

AMD should have priced fury's 50$ cheaper.  Then they would be a killer deal.  As it sits now, the fury non x at least best the stock 980, it is priced higher though, it's okay there, not great.  But okay.
That is more than the furyX.  It doesn't win and it is priced too high

(07-29-2015, 07:09 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote: I'll say this:

Fury X is a pretty amazing effort given the situation at AMD now.

Even over at Rage 3d they're proclaiming the end of AMD, but I look at it a different way. On a shoestring budget they are 5-10% off the pace of the fastest GPUs you can buy. The Fury non X is a good deal, period.

All AMD had to do is price Fury X at $575 and they would have been declared the winner of this gen. Probably the ONLY reason they're at $650 is AMD is about at the point of having bake sales and car washes.

I read on Rage3d rumors they didn't even have food for the press at E3.

(07-29-2015, 09:40 AM)BoFox Wrote: It's all for the better - a mega-corporation needs to swoop in and snatch AMD up for pennies, even if AMD has over a billion dollar debt weighing down the carcass.  

It makes the most sense for Microsoft to buy AMD and start pouring billions upon billions of R&D into hardware.  Sure, there could be legal workarounds so that AMD could still be considered  an independent company "merging" with Microsoft, and still produce x86 CPUs/APUs with the old license, but really be completely owned by Microsoft after all.  

This would really threaten Sony with the PS5, especially if Nvidia sticks to their decision to no longer be a bitch for somebody else's consoles.  

I'm thinking that there has to be such a secretive agreement or clause somewhere between Sony, AMD, and Microsoft - that neither Sony or Microsoft are allowed to buy AMD out for the entire duration of AMD supplying chips to either party????  Maybe I'm not making any sense at all?  It's just that Microsoft would do anything to wipe Sony out of the console competition, and snatching AMD up now would be a no-brainer.  The price that Microsoft is paying for all of those APU's in their consoles is probably not too far away from the total market value of AMD altogether, nearly at a historic bottom within the last 12 years or so.  

Must be anti-monopoly laws that M$ is afraid of, thus steering clear of the temptation to buy 51% of AMD's shares, at least?

(07-29-2015, 04:09 AM)BoFox Wrote: Voltage adjustment experiments done on Fury X - abysmal results with scaling vs core clock increases:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X_Overvoltage/



That's basically half the fps gain for each MHz gain, proportionally-wise!!!  It reminds me of the scaling of overclocking AMD's bullsh*coughs*dozer or pile-o'turd-driver CPU's!



Looks like even stock-clocked HBM1 isn't plentiful already for Fury X cards, poorly optimized with default 512GB/s bandwidth, despite having much larger L2 cache than Hawaii.  



Warning:  W1zzard said that +40mV would be the max for safe continuous operation, even with overclocked watercooling pump.  Anything more overheats the VRM's, especially given the fact that they're already directly cooled by a copper pipe nearby, connected to the watercooler.

Quote:As you can see, power ramps up very quickly, much faster than maximum clock or performance. From stock to +144 mV, power draw increases by 27%, while overclocking potential only went up by 5% and real-life performance increases by only 3%.

Quote:In this graph, I'm showing full-system power draw during testing. This test has clock speeds fixed at 1100 MHz for better comparison.

(07-29-2015, 11:42 PM)ocre Wrote: Bofox, what do you mean by half a fps per each mhz?  it looks nowhere near that.  I would say 50mhz increase gave about a half a fps.  that would be .01 fps every mhz.

(07-29-2015, 11:42 PM)ocre Wrote: that is what it says, but actually he rigged the test.  Its probably even worse.  

Quote:In this graph, I'm showing full-system power draw during testing. This test has clock speeds fixed at 1100 MHz for better comparison.

You see, they locked the speed at 1100mhz!!!!
That means that the power consumption results are not showing the card with a 5% overclock.  That 27% figure is not based on the card running with a 5% higher overclock.  He fixed the clock speed at 1100mhz.  With +144mv his gpu clocks at about 1220mhz.  He talks about the extra 5% potential in his power consumption commentary but did not show the actual results of 1220mhz @ +144mv.  The results would have been worse.  Possibly, way worse.......most likely, way way worse

and they are already, really really bad

he says, "Looking at the numbers, I'm not sure if a 150W power draw increase for a mere 3 FPS increase is worth it for most gamers. Smaller voltage bumps to get a specific clock frequency 100% stable are alright, though."  BUT------> the power consumption results are from his card at 1100mhz.  There is no extra 3 fps, it is not accurate.   At 1220mhz, his power consumption could would have been worse