Fury X possibly reviewed with incorrect drivers

[dasyoyo16]

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/3b30bt/discussionfury_x_possibly_reviewed_with_incorrect/

 

edit: it was confirmed recently by an AMD rep that the 180612a driver is fake and was probably meant to start trouble. this however does not explain why there are multiple 15.15 drivers, june 15 and the 20th. Anything you read below may no longer relavent and new comments should be taken with a grain of salt. If anyone here has a fury could you please bench for us with old and new drivers so we can put this to rest.

 

posted by /u/sofuckingnub on /r/AMD

 

"Just putting this out there. Here's a review that seems quite different from the other ones:https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ixbt.com%2Fvideo3%2Ffiji-part3.shtml This one actually shows that Fury beats 980 ti in a lot of tests and even titan x in some tests. Of course in lower resolutions it seems that NVidia still wins a lot of times, but it's not as bad as it is with some other reviewers. Now here's a possible reason why. Driver version used in this review is 15.15-180612a-18565BE which the reviewer was sent by AMD on June 18th. The press driver on AMD's FTP server is 15.15-150611a-185358E. I think this is probably the reason of this inconsistency."

 

Apparently there are 3 different drivers out there with the same 15.15 name, theres the june-20th one thats currently on amd's website, a june-17th, and the june-15th driver that all the reviewers used.

 

here is guru3d's benchmark with the most up to date driver and it is showing the fury beating the 980ti in most cases and even the titan, something the other reviews with the old drivers didn't.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,26.html

[salecar3]

linus cat tips(woad know to install right driver)

[d3sl91]

Or maybe google translate doesn't work? Maybe someone didn't type it out well?

 

Interesting stuff. 

[Ostwind]

We will see.

[jhurst117]

linus cat tips(woad know to install right driver)

if they had a working card to begin with dont know if they recieved there new card yet

[Lays]

I saw loads of reviewers saying the drivers seemed "young" and not finished, so we will probably see bigger improvements once they are fixed.

[Sauron]

If it's true the pricing makes a lot more sense. More than anything this would show the two cards (fury x and 980ti) are perfectly comparable, and any slight edge may be a matter of drivers, which I'm sure will be refined by both parties in the future.

[Agent181]

Guys what if amd derped and sent out the wrong driver

[Sauron]

I mean, it makes sense. I just wish AMD would release the right drivers the first time...people already have bad first impressions of the Fury X

 

To be fair the driver is not released yet, it's in beta.

[SonoDanshi]

I mean, it makes sense. I just wish AMD would release the right drivers the first time...people already have bad first impressions of the Fury X

I fully agree here. It seems like AMD doing their best to sabotage themselves. First impressions really do count and if their lack of co-ordination on getting a driver generally available for the review samples to go out means every sees it benching below a 980Ti I don't think the next round of reviews are going to be able to make up for the impressions people already have.

[Suika]

This nails that AMD has shitty drivers, but if the Fury X is a better performer than originally assumed, then awesome.

[VagabondWraith]

I fully agree here. It seems like AMD doing their best to sabotage themselves. First impressions really do count and if their lack of co-ordination on getting a driver generally available for the review samples to go out means every sees it benching below a 980Ti I don't think the next round of reviews are going to be able to make up for the impressions people already have.

Could be worse than the 3.5GB fiasco.

Releasing a brand new product with a 7 year development cycle and you release a bad driver. Lulz

[Bouzoo]

@That Norwegian Guy

Your life just got more complicated.

Has anyone tested the card with 15.16 beta?

[Deli]

If this is true, then AMD has just made a giant blunder. Some heads will roll.

[Accursed Entity]

I'm not an AMD user but I sure hope so, it is good to finally have the red team ahead.

[alphaproject]

So funny that a card is released with no official river only beta drivers, lol.   That is classic AMD right there.

[Texhnlyze]

If this is true, I can just imagine the amount of facepalms in AMD.

[MrSpeed]

i facepalmed so hard. AMD wtf?
 

 

If this is true, I can just imagine the amount of facepalms in AMD.

[Sky Daddy]

either way, i'm waiting for the fury x lightning and 980ti lightning showdown

[Diederik_Gr]

It is pretty much expected. Wasn't the 290x launch much like this?

[Texhnlyze]

But still, the difference between the cards are only 1-3 fps. Still not enough especially when the 980ti overclocks like a beast. All AMD needs to do now is show the overclocking ability of the fury x. It will be interesting when both cards are pushed to their limits.

[digitalnav]

Are all these sites using the same MSAA, graphics settings, etc? Cause the # of rops in 980 Ti vs Fury X can cause the 980 Ti to beat it out in some games if they use blending techniques for graphics.

[Godlygamer23]

here is guru3d's benchmark with the most up to date driver and it is showing the fury beating the 980ti in most cases and even the titan, something the other reviews with the old drivers didn't.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,26.html

 

The performance difference is still underwhelming.

[Texhnlyze]

Forgot to say something

 

Blame gameworks.

[Briggsy]

either way it was AMD's fault. no one expects them to have more than one driver in a short span of time. Plus its going up against GM200 which has had 4 months of driver maturity.

 

I think AMD are probably going to let this slide, given that they probably used old Nvidia drivers for their own benchmarks from last week. Poetic happenstance.