AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance

[SOLO_AVENGER]

How do you come up with that conclusion?

 

 

We don't even know how it actually performs yet, so...

 

You do know that I said "If this is true".

[MEC-777]

You do know that I said "If this is true".

 

How do you figure? The supposed $850 Fury will be the water-cooled version that comes with a full waterblock, rad and fan. The EVGA 980Ti Hydro Copper comes with just the waterblock and is only $50 more. So by that comparison, it's looking still very competitive. 

 

The air-cooled variants will be cheaper putting them more in-line with the air cooled 980Ti's (not the reference card). So again, still competitive - assuming "if this is true" (the 3Dmark scores). 

[SOLO_AVENGER]

How do you figure? The supposed $850 Fury will be the water-cooled version that comes with a full waterblock, rad and fan. The EVGA 980Ti Hydro Copper comes with just the waterblock and is only $50 more. So by that comparison, it's looking still very competitive. 

 

The air-cooled variants will be cheaper putting them more in-line with the air cooled 980Ti's (not the reference card). So again, still competitive - assuming "if this is true" (the 3Dmark scores). 

Yeah it's competitive but I hope that AMD will have something that will compete with Nvidia's next line up. I've always rooted for AMD and I hope that the Fury X beats the Titan X with a cheaper price point, even though that may be unrealistic.

[MEC-777]

Yeah it's competitive but I hope that AMD will have something that will compete with Nvidia's next line up. I've always rooted for AMD and I hope that the Fury X beats the Titan X with a cheaper price point, even though that may be unrealistic.

 

AMD has always had something to compete. Just as an example, the 290/x was initially made to compete with the 780/Ti and we know how they stack up. They're now revising Hawaii to compete more on par with the 970 and 980 (they weren't too far behind). As long as they're priced accordingly, they will remain competitive. 

 

Again, we don't really know Fiji's true performance yet. But we'll find out in less than a week.  

[Dabombinable]

The AMD hate is strong among this community... It's becoming increasingly annoying. 

 

And if you are not on the hate train, then they consider you a fanboy - specially if you call them out for bullshit talk and trolling.

1. The facts don't lie, AMD utterly screwed up with their FX line or at the very least targeted the wrong market (and they knew it at launch too). The FX line is best suited for tasks that require multiple threads such as workstation use, video editing rendering etc and should have been marketed as such. Then AMD should have kept their classic CPU designs, improved on them and marketed them as their gaming CPU's.

2. I will admit that some people are Intel fanboys, however there are still quite a few who fanboy to AMD as well despite how many times they get shown the facts

3. I myself like AMD's older CPU's as they cost less than their Intel counterparts while having performance that is pretty damn close (my main comparisons are between my Celeron 500 and K6-2 500 - overclocked Celeron 300A managed to beat the K6-2 sometimes however, though only my s370 Abit VP6 is working since the cheap capacitors (well on my non Intel boards anyway-I still haven't found its problem) on my other motherboards have failed which means that I can no longer benchmak the CPU's). However they have royally fucked up Ati so I harbour no sympathy for AMD and while I would buy an Ati graphics card (the fury trio of cards look very good as far as I can tell) I would not buy an AMD CPU.

[MEC-777]

1. The facts don't lie, AMD utterly screwed up with their FX line or at the very least targeted the wrong market (and they knew it at launch too). The FX line is best suited for tasks that require multiple threads such as workstation use, video editing rendering etc and should have been marketed as such. Then AMD should have kept their classic CPU designs, improved on them and marketed them as their gaming CPU's.

2. I will admit that some people are Intel fanboys, however there are still quite a few who fanboy to AMD as well despite how many times they get shown the facts

3. I myself like AMD's older CPU's as they cost less than their Intel counterparts while having performance that is pretty damn close (my main comparisons are between my Celeron 500 and K6-2 500 - overclocked Celeron 300A managed to beat the K6-2 sometimes however, though only my s370 Abit VP6 is working since the cheap capacitors (well on my non Intel boards anyway-I still haven't found its problem) on my other motherboards have failed which means that I can no longer benchmak the CPU's). However they have royally fucked up Ati so I harbour no sympathy for AMD and while I would buy an Ati graphics card (the fury trio of cards look very good as far as I can tell) I would not buy an AMD CPU.

 

As PC enthusiasts, the ones who buy up those "high-end" CPUs, we are the minority. AMD was wise to develop their APU line as that is what the majority of consumers actually need and use on a daily basis. They've improved them to the point where they can compete with Intel in the low to mid-range laptop/desktop market (where the majority of consumers purchase) and keep the cost reasonable. Vendors are starting to pick them up and this is very good as this will help feed their R&D for Zen and future GPU/CPU development.

 

It's very easy to see what "we" want and then become disappointed when a company doesn't provide it. There's nothing wrong with that. FX was a mess, to say the least. Their IPC was nowhere near where it needed to be. You're right in that regard.

 

But we can't lose site of the "whole picture" or we easily lose context of what's actually going on. We know that AMD knows FX was a mess. They've admitted it. And on that note, they are actively doing something about it (they've told us). They've not only improved their APUs in nearly every way (IPC, efficiency, iGPU), but they're also working hard on Zen. They don't have deep pockets and man-power to pump out new products as quickly as Nvidia or Intel, so to hold that against them is a little unfair. Yeah, they put themselves where they are, but it doesn't matter at this point. They are where they are and they're doing what they can as fast as they can. In that regard (not necessarily speaking to you here) I say suck it up and be patient. If you can't wait, go buy another product. If you can wait, then wait and don't complain.

 

As for their GPUs, how the heck did they f--k up ATi? What are you talking about? Their GPUs are still competitive and pretty much always have been in terms of price and performance. (Speaking to everyone here) I am really struggling to see where the hate is coming from on the GPU side.  IMO, the reason they have to under-cut Nvidia on pricing so often and be the "cheap option" is because of the unusual and inexplicable surge of Nvidia favoritism/bias that has spread throughout the PC enthusiast community in recent times. Even when the performance is exactly the same or better and the efficiency is similar, still most people choose Nvidia and I just don't understand why. I've mentioned this a number of times on this forum and that is this double standard when it comes to Nvidia and AMD. Nvidia can do no wrong and AMD can do no right. It's like nobody knows or cares about objectivity anymore. If you want bleeding-edge/high-end level of performance, you should be expected to pay for it, regardless of who makes it. 

[Dabombinable]

As PC enthusiasts, the ones who buy up those "high-end" CPUs, we are the minority. AMD was wise to develop their APU line as that is what the majority of consumers actually need and use on a daily basis. They've improved them to the point where they can compete with Intel in the low to mid-range laptop market (where the majority of consumers purchase) and keep the cost reasonable. Vendors are starting to pick them up and this is very good as this will help feed their R&D for Zen and future GPU/CPU development.

 

It's very easy to see what "we" want and then become disappointed when a company doesn't provide it. There's nothing wrong with that. FX was a mess, to say the least. Their IPC was nowhere near where it needed to be. You're right in that regard.

 

But we can't lose site of the "whole picture" or we easily lose context of what's actually going on. We know that AMD knows FX was a mess. They've admitted it. And on that note, they are actively doing something about it (they've told us). They've not only improved their APUs in nearly every way (IPC, efficiency, iGPU), but they're also working hard on Zen. They don't have deep pockets and man-power to pump out new products as quickly as Nvidia or Intel, so to hold that against them is a little unfair. Yeah, they put themselves where they are, but it doesn't matter at this point. They are where they are and they're doing what they can as fast as they can. In that regard (not necessarily speaking to you here) I say suck it up and be patient. If you can't wait, go buy another product. If you can wait, then wait and don't complain.

 

As for their GPUs, how the heck did they f--k up ATi? What are you talking about? Their GPUs are still competitive and pretty much always have been in terms of price and performance. (Speaking to everyone here) I am really struggling to see where the hate is coming from on the GPU side.  IMO, the reason they have to under-cut Nvidia on pricing so often and be the "cheap option" is because of the unusual and inexplicable surge of Nvidia favoritism/bias that has spread throughout the PC enthusiast community in recent times. Even when the performance is exactly the same or better and the efficiency is similar, still most people choose Nvidia and I just don't understand why. I've mentioned this a number of times on this forum and that is this double standard when it comes to Nvidia and AMD. Nvidia can do no wrong and AMD can do no right. It's like nobody knows or cares about objectivity anymore. If you want bleeding-edge/high-end level of performance, you should be expected to pay for it, regardless of who makes it. 

Look at the market share before and after Ati was bought out. Plus there are the cards being sold for 2-3 generations with minimal if any spec changes while costing more than the original.

[MEC-777]

Look at the market share before and after Ati was bought out. Plus there are the cards being sold for 2-3 generations with minimal if any spec changes while costing more than the original.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but ATi is long gone. They were bought out and now it's just "AMD". But why should that have anything to do with what's going on now? Can we not just simply look at each product objectively for what it is, in the now, and compare accordingly without brand bias or bad tastes from many years past?

 

With regards to the rebranding of the 300 series (and previous series), I've talked about this before, as have several others, ad nauseum. It's like I explained in my last reply; AMD simply doesn't have the resources to pump out new products like their competing companies. They can't keep selling previous gen cards and retain the naming along side new products with new naming. It's confusing and they won't sell as many. It's clear, if you take the time to look at the previous 200 series rebrands from the 7000 series cards, that numerous changes and improvements were made to most, if not all, the "rebranded" cards. Not just minor bumps in clock speeds, but revised/improved PCB's, upgraded components and revised/improved (many being completely different) coolers, are among the list of things differentiating the 7000 series cards from the 200 series. So the cards are actually "new", despite sharing the same GPU die, which warrants the name change and higher price tag. You are (technically) buying a new and better card. And as for "pricing rebrands higher than the original", the 290X launch price was around $550, yet the 390X launch price is rumored to be just under $400. 

[Opcode]

There are actually results in the database

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5036776

I was talking about individual hands on testing/review. Logan has his own personal benchmark database (not just 3DMark numbers) that is simply massive (as he would say).

[Linusinium]

Water is coming:

 

 

 

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3822064025?see_lz=1

[Opcode]

Water is coming:

 

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3822064025?see_lz=1

Always good to save the image and upload it to imgur when using these kinds other side of the world sites as hotlinking usually results in no image at all being shown.

 

That being the case, the image (taken on a potato) for those who cannot see it.

[Dabombinable]

Always good to save the image and upload it to imgur when using these kinds other side of the world sites as hotlinking usually results in no image at all being shown.

 

That being the case, the image (taken on a potato) for those who cannot see it.

Damn that's low res. I thought the 2MP camera in my phone (2005 Sony) was low res, but that's got to be near VGA quality.

[Opcode]

Damn that's low res. I thought the 2MP camera in my phone (2005 Sony) was low res, but that's got to be near VGA quality.

Seeing how small the card is now in comparison to a 120mm radiator. I wonder what ways the AIBs are going to tackle the air cooled variants of this card. I see a bunch of AIBs extending the PCB to accommodate better cooling. Although I wonder if someone like Sapphire has the balls to make a Fury X compact.

 

[Dabombinable]

Seeing how small the card is now in comparison to a 120mm radiator. I wonder what ways the AIBs are going to tackle the air cooled variants of this card. I see a bunch of AIBs extending the PCB to accommodate better cooling. Although I wonder if someone like Sapphire has the balls to make a Fury X compact.

 

Well if the GPU actually has the TDP that's been stated, they could try. But more than likely there will be thermal issues.

[alphaproject]

The 390X even though it's not "NEW" is going to be $449 at Best Buy. Right now you could get the 290X for $330 or so on newegg right now. I doubt the 390X will be almost $120 better than the 290X... what you think?

[Humbug]

The 390X even though it's not "NEW" is going to be $449 at Best Buy.

Aren't those placeholder prices?

[alphaproject]

I don't know... I guess we'll find out. Some dude claimed he works there and all I saw was his reddit post and he said $449.  I thought they'd be far cheaper though.

[Notional]

Check out this Crysis 3 screenshot AMD made. It's in 8K! 7680x4320 pixels

 

http://download.amd.com/images/Crysis3%202015-05-21%2011-17-45-56.bmp

[Mr.Dingle]

Check out this Crysis 3 screenshot AMD made. It's in 8K! 7680x4320 pixels

 

http://download.amd.com/images/Crysis3%202015-05-21%2011-17-45-56.bmp

 

Suddenly , im on dial-up again

[Notional]

Suddenly , im on dial-up again

 

It's a 94,9 MB file  ... But BMP, really AMD? PNG ftw.

[MEC-777]

Always good to save the image and upload it to imgur when using these kinds other side of the world sites as hotlinking usually results in no image at all being shown.

 

That being the case, the image (taken on a potato) for those who cannot see it.

-snip-

 

Looks like a double-thick rad. I wonder who the OEM is for the rad/hoses/pump etc. 

 

Seeing how small the card is now in comparison to a 120mm radiator. I wonder what ways the AIBs are going to tackle the air cooled variants of this card. I see a bunch of AIBs extending the PCB to accommodate better cooling. Although I wonder if someone like Sapphire has the balls to make a Fury X compact.

 

Well, previously the reason PCBs were longer was to accommodate the large VRM array and all the GDDR5 Vram modules spread around the GPU. Now there's no Vram modules to take up all that space with HBM. The 285 compact wasn't too hard to make with only 2GB GDDR5 to worry about and a lot less heat to dissipate, thus a smaller air cooler was possible. Fury will have a lot more heat to get rid of, so even if they don't need a longer PCB for the components, they'll still need a sizable air cooler design/assembly. The compact Fury will be the one we've seen that's water cooled. It's probably the only way they can make one that small. 

[patrickjp93]

Looks like a double-thick rad. I wonder who the OEM is for the rad/hoses/pump etc. 

 

 

Well, previously the reason PCBs were longer was to accommodate the large VRM array and all the GDDR5 Vram modules spread around the GPU. Now there's no Vram modules to take up all that space with HBM. The 285 compact wasn't too hard to make with only 2GB GDDR5 to worry about and a lot less heat to dissipate, thus a smaller air cooler was possible. Fury will have a lot more heat to get rid of, so even if they don't need a longer PCB for the components, they'll still need a sizable air cooler design/assembly. The compact Fury will be the one we've seen that's water cooled. It's probably the only way they can make one that small. 

Rumor around Overclockers UK is that Hardware Labs is providing the radiators (most likely Black Ice Nemesis GTX with a smooth finish) which will go nicely with the confirmed AP-45 Gentle Typhoons.

[Biggerisbetter]

I'm hoping the water block are not that expensive, given the size of the card. Cooling this card is a water coolers wet dream. Small form factor and no DDR5 to cool should give nice temps and good over clocking. I'm hoping I can mod the stock cooler and just add it to my water loop. That might not be a good idea for warranty purposes, a modder can only dream 

[MEC-777]

I'm hoping the water block are not that expensive, given the size of the card. Cooling this card is a water coolers wet dream. Small form factor and no DDR5 to cool should give nice temps and good over clocking. I'm hoping I can mod the stock cooler and just add it to my water loop. That might not be a good idea for warranty purposes, a modder can only dream 

 

The pump is integrated into the waterblock (probably why it's dual-slot width), so I don't know how that would effect being spliced into a custom-loop. The pump on the Fury is most likely variable speed, where as your custom loop is constant pump speed. Could cause issues...

 

Would be cool if the hoses had quick disconnects or fittings on the card so you could add it into your loop or run a bigger rad if you want. 

[Biggerisbetter]

The pump is integrated into the waterblock (probably why it's dual-slot width), so I don't know how that would effect being spliced into a custom-loop. The pump on the Fury is most likely variable speed, where as your custom loop is constant pump speed. Could cause issues...

 

Would be cool if the hoses had quick disconnects or fittings on the card so you could add it into your loop or run a bigger rad if you want. 

The pump doesn't have to run for water to pass through it, since most water pumps are centrifugal. Passing water through it shouldn't be any harder or more restrictive than a CPU waterblock. I'm assuming the AIO waterblock are large enough to cover the complete GPU die including the width of the imposer. Just my assumptions, I could be wrong