Fury X or Fury (non-X) or GTX 980Ti?

[RononDex]

Originally I wanted to buy 2x Fury X. However they are all out of stock and I want the horse power asap!

 

I just bought the MG279Q (Screen with Freesync), so obviously I would prefer an AMD card.

Also I have been using AMD cards for a long time and want to backup AMD for beeing a competitor to NVIDIA and coming up with new technologies like HBM.

(No one wants a market completly dominated by one single company).

 

Right now I am wondering if I should go for 2x Fury (non-x) instead of the Fury X or maybe change sides to NVIDIA for the 980Ti?

All the benchmarks I found on the Fury and Fury X were done with the old drivers and don't represent current numbers.

 

I am also looking into doing a custom watercooling loop some time later, which would be a downside for the Fury X which (at least as far as I know) only works with the All in One Watercooler it ships with.

However I probably wont do that before next summer or so...

Decisions, decisions over decisions...

 

Futhermore I ordered the Corsair 900D case, so space for mounting 2x additional water rads of the fury x's should be no issue.

 

I would really love to buy the Fury X. If any one knows a retailer somewhere around Switzerland that has them in stock, I would be really glad!

 

Or do you have any other suggestions?

[don_svetlio]

with current news of DX12 and Nvidia cards lacking A-sync compute on the PCB I'd say Fury X

[Whorax]

In your particular scenario I would say wait for some Fury Xs to come into stock.

[OAcesync]

980Ti would be a better card but with the lack of Async compute for DX12(which can only be fixed in the new architecture so you'd be stuck with it) I would favor AMD more as of now

[rtpb5642]

980ti- i need the VRAM

[Masada02]

Fury X's. Since you are planning on doing a 2 card setup, stick with AMD. Crossfire scales so much better than SLI.

 

Realistically though, the normal Fury is probably the best buy. It performs super close to the X and is $100 cheaper. Grab 2 of those and you'll be good to go.

 

The reason I went with the X's is because they actually fit in my small case and I like the way they look more than the normal Fury. I also like that I can direct the cards heat output directly out of the case, instead of back into the case like most cards.

 

Also, you can get waterblocks for the Fury X, and I believe those same waterblocks will fit on the Sapphire Fury (non-X).

[Sauron]

2 furys are a good choice for their price. If you don't need more powah (and I don't think you do) go for it. Buying an nvidia card for a freesync monitor doesn't make a lot of sense

 

with current news of DX12 and Nvidia cards lacking A-sync compute on the PCB I'd say Fury X

 

I wouldn't make my decision based on a single benchmark. Those same news indicate that a-sync compute is in fact available on the cards, but the driver implementation is beyond terrible - which could change drastically in the future.

[don_svetlio]

2 furys are a good choice for their price. If you don't need more powah (and I don't think you do) go for it. Buying an nvidia card for a freesync monitor doesn't make a lot of sense

 

 

I wouldn't make my decision based on a single benchmark. Those same news indicate that a-sync compute is in fact available on the cards, but the driver implementation is beyond terrible - which could change drastically in the future.

Thing is - one bench or no, one game or more - it exposed a critical design flaw in Maxwell - similar to the 3.5 + 0.5 GB issue on the 970 - Async Compute is not present on the PCB - driver reports it there but in reality it's missing - no amount of patching can solder a part onto the GPU core. Sorry but that's the facts

[RononDex]

Thanks a lot for your fast responses

 

Yes I already noticed Fury X (or AMD cards in general) are scaling better with Crossfire and higher resolutions.

However I currently on 1440p and will probably stay there for a few years. So the 4GB VRAM should not be an issue.

 

Does anyone know if you can make a custom cooling loop with the Fury X?

 

EDIT:

Nevermind, my question about custom water cooling loop was already answered:

 

Fury X's. Since you are planning on doing a 2 card setup, stick with AMD. Crossfire scales so much better than SLI.

 

Realistically though, the normal Fury is probably the best buy. It performs super close to the X and is $100 cheaper. Grab 2 of those and you'll be good to go.

 

The reason I went with the X's is because they actually fit in my small case and I like the way they look more than the normal Fury. I also like that I can direct the cards heat output directly out of the case, instead of back into the case like most cards.

 

Also, you can get waterblocks for the Fury X, and I believe those same waterblocks will fit on the Sapphire Fury (non-X).

 

[Masada02]

Thanks a lot for your fast responses

 

Yes I already noticed Fury X (or AMD cards in general) are scaling better with Crossfire and higher resolutions.

However I currently on 1440p and will probably stay there for a few years. So the 4GB VRAM should not be an issue.

 

Does anyone know if you can make a custom cooling loop with the Fury X?

Yes, EK makes a water block for the Fury X, which also should fit the Sapphire Fury.

[don_svetlio]

Thanks a lot for your fast responses

 

Yes I already noticed Fury X (or AMD cards in general) are scaling better with Crossfire and higher resolutions.

However I currently on 1440p and will probably stay there for a few years. So the 4GB VRAM should not be an issue.

 

Does anyone know if you can make a custom cooling loop with the Fury X?

Not without voiding the warranty but it comes liquid cooled out of the box - just find a spot for the radiator and that awesome gentle typhoon.

[Sauron]

Thing is - one bench or no, one game or more - it exposed a critical design flaw in Maxwell - similar to the 3.5 + 0.5 GB issue on the 970 - Async Compute is not present on the PCB - driver reports it there but in reality it's missing - no amount of patching can solder a part onto the GPU core. Sorry but that's the facts

 

Are you sure it's in fact not present on the pcb? I haven't read too much into it but that's not what I got from what I did read.

 

And don't be sorry for me, I have an amd gpu B)

[don_svetlio]

Are you sure it's in fact not present on the pcb? I haven't read too much into it but that's not what I got from what I did read.

 

And don't be sorry for me, I have an amd gpu B)

From what I remember the Oxide dev saying - the driver reported the feature available but when they tried to use it - it failed dramatically - from what I remember it was discussed that it wasn't available on the PCB itself - which doesn't surprise me - Nvidia cut out almost all of the compute power from maxwell.

[arronleeds]

why do people keep going on about nvida and async compute, companies and sources like to talk shit to make other companies look bad, if nvidia truly doesnt support it im sure it would come from them, otherwise they will get sued yet again.

 

 

im gonna email then and ask for the truth.

[don_svetlio]

why do people keep going on about nvida and async compute, companies and sources like to talk shit to make other companies look bad, if nvidia truly doesnt support it im sure it would come from them, otherwise they will get sued yet again.

 

 

im gonna email then and ask for the truth.

because so far - Nvidia have lied, blamed everyone they could and flat out screwed over people using Kepler. They are evil, deal with it.

[arronleeds]

im in live assistance now with them, i will screenshot what they say and then if they lie to me i can actually use it against them.

[Sauron]

From what I remember the Oxide dev saying - the driver reported the feature available but when they tried to use it - it failed dramatically - from what I remember it was discussed that it wasn't available on the PCB itself - which doesn't surprise me - Nvidia cut out almost all of the compute power from maxwell.

 

That's what a semi-monopoly does unfortunately. If amd cards were more successful (and they really have no reason not to be other than marketing) nvidia would have thought twice about nerfing their chips in any way. When the 970 launched I kind of regretted not waiting for it, but after all the nonsense that's gone on with that card now I'm glad I didn't. The 3.5gb thing wouldn't have turned me off, but the lower compute performance and this new thing definitely would (if it's true).

[RononDex]

im in live assistance now with them, i will screenshot what they say and then if they lie to me i can actually use it against them.

Nice, would be interested in that too

[don_svetlio]

im in live assistance now with them, i will screenshot what they say and then if they lie to me i can actually use it against them.

2 things - they won't tell you the truth because you WILL use it against them - you cannot sue them for a design flaw Nobody can. Get real man.

[don_svetlio]

That's what a semi-monopoly does unfortunately. If amd cards were more successful (and they really have no reason not to be other than marketing) nvidia would have thought twice about nerfing their chips in any way. When the 970 launched I kind of regretted not waiting for it, but after all the nonsense that's gone on with that card now I'm glad I didn't. The 3.5gb thing wouldn't have turned me off, but the lower compute performance and this new thing definitely would (if it's true).

Well - people were doubting the VRAM issue, they doubted the Kepler nerf - now they doubt this. Fanboy defense brigade, ASSEMBLE!

[Praesi]

First, you should ignore this Asynchron outrage. Its an early stage Game in which 1 Feature dont work with Nvidia. Other Features will not work with AMD. It was and will always be so.

The 980Ti is now the best card you can have and who knows what´s tomorrow.

Get the 980Ti.

[Sauron]

why do people keep going on about nvida and async compute, companies and sources like to talk shit to make other companies look bad, if nvidia truly doesnt support it im sure it would come from them, otherwise they will get sued yet again.

 

 

im gonna email then and ask for the truth.

 

I'm not sure it would come from them... they certainly didn't bother to tell anyone about the 3.5gb 970 thing. Besides what interest would a game developer have in soiling nvidia's name?

[don_svetlio]

First, you should ignore this Asynchron outrage. Its an early stage Game in which 1 Feature dont work with Nvidia. Other Features will not work with AMD. It was and will always be so.

The 980Ti is now the best card you can have and who knows what´s tomorrow.

Get the 980Ti.

The fanboy is strong with this one

[arronleeds]

2 things - they won't tell you the truth because you WILL use it against them - you cannot sue them for a design flaw Nobody can. Get real man.

they cant lie to people... and yes you could sue because its still false advertising, youre not from the uk and dont know how it works here.

[don_svetlio]

I'm not sure it would come from them... they certainly didn't bother to tell anyone about the 3.5gb 970 thing. Besides what interest would a game developer have in soiling nvidia's name?

More or less this - they also didn't tell anyone about the Kepler nerf - or the Tessellated water in Crysis 2 designed to screw over AMD and themselves - 50% penalty for AMD, 20% penalty for them -DO IT!.