Unofficial R9 Fury X reviews master post.

[Bouzoo]

TechPowerUp

 

@marldorthegreat

[MegaDave91]

OC3D: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/amd_r9_fury_x_review/1

so far, very meh ...

it's on par with 980Ti reference; one thing looks clear: Fury X is no match for custom 980Ti s

so complicated design, HBM1 .. for what?! aven power draw (at the wall) raises some eyebrows:

if this is their flagship single GPU card, I'm worried for AMD and what that might mean for the future of PC gaming

His graphs are a bunch of rubbish. I'm glad I don't follow that buffoon.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Just like the R9 290X vs the GTX 970.

 

Yeap, exactly what's happening right now. I'm still gettin a fury tho. The 980 Ti is a fuck ton more expensive in my area. 

[Justhavocman]

I am disappoint

[ZetZet]

Like expected, AMD is dead.

 

[AxelRantila]

No HDMI 2.0 is a big disappointment for me

And why only 4GB on a flagship card. Yes HBM is different from GDDR5, but since we are already seeing 4GB VRAM being maxed out at 1080p, I'm wondering why everyone says that it'll be plenty for 4k

 

So Linus' card DOA

 

 

Don't throw your GPUs out the car folks

AMD should take a lesson from Corsair and LTT

[Cedimedi]

wtf, even tho im not that much of an AMD fan, i expected more. If the price would be around ~500 bucks then it would be ok, but same price as a 980 Ti and even worse performance most of the time?

[ZetZet]

wtf, even tho im not that much of an AMD fan, i expected more. If the price would be around ~500 bucks then it would be ok, but same price as a 980 Ti and even worse performance most of the time?

performance is quite a bit lower, because reference 980ti is not clocked very high.

[pjm0925]

The price is going to dictate a lot on this one.  I'm personally a bit disappointed, but it's still early days.  i want to see what people can do with OC'ing this thing.

[Bouzoo]

Guru3D

 

@marldorthegreat

[Takata]

So Linus' card DOA

 

 

Don't throw your GPUs out the car folks

...and I thought that fully enclosed design with almost none of the PCB exposed would protect the card from a little careless handling. >.>

[VagabondWraith]

45 FPS @ 5K. HAHAHAHA. No. Sorry AMD, you tried and failed. Ti remains the cream of the crop.

Very disappointing AMD. Very disappointing.

[HKZeroFive]

Not going to lie, I'm a bit disappointed, but I'm just hoping AMD can make some money from this card and become an even more formidable contender against Nvidia in the future.

[marldorthegreat]

45 FPS @ 5K. HAHAHAHA. No. Sorry AMD, you tried and failed. Ti remains the cream of the crop.

Very disappointing AMD. Very disappointing.

No, at 4k the fury wins EVERY time

[Guest]

I'm very skeptical of the Fury X's longevity. Those Cooler Master pumps aren't know for their reliability.

[zMeul]

pcper: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-X-4GB-Review-Fiji-Finally-Tested

[Sunako]

No, at 4k the fury wins EVERY time

can you point out which source you say says  the fury is winning at 4k  every one has it behind that i have been reading so far.

[EChondo]

Just read the TechpowerUp review, the Fury X handles its own in over half of the games at 4k vs. the 980ti.

 

I think the price should have been around $600, but $650 is not that bad at all.

 

Also I love all the "AMD is dead" posts, God damn this is a great card AMD just put out, but since it didn't blow 980ti out of the water it somehow kills the whole company? LOL, yeah sure.

[ZetZet]

Just read the TechpowerUp review, the Fury X handles its own in over half of the games at 4k vs. the 980ti.

 

I think the price should have been around $600, but $650 is not that bad at all.

 

Also I love all the "AMD is dead" posts, God damn this is a great card AMD just put out, but since it didn't blow 980ti out of the water it somehow kills the whole company? LOL, yeah sure.

But it's a reference 980ti... Look at how much faster acx 2.0 and g1 gaming 980 ti is...

[ACatWithThumbs]

No, at 4k the fury wins EVERY time

No it doesn't look at the PCper review it's closer but still isn't faster and that is at stock the 980 Ti gets up to 1400mhz while the FuryX seems to clock out at around 1150mhz and that is comparing a water cooled card vs air.

That paired with 2GB less VRam makes it a worse card for 4K some of the reviews even reported problems with running out of Vram at 4k.

[marldorthegreat]

But it's a reference 980ti... Look at how much faster acx 2.0 and g1 gaming 980 ti is...

Yeah but that is an unfair comparison. Wait for the r9 fury cards to come out....

[ZetZet]

Yeah but that is an unfair comparison. Wait for the r9 fury cards to come out....

fury will be slower than fury x amd already said that.

[Briggsy]

I'm very skeptical of the Fury X's longevity. Those Cooler Master pumps aren't know for their reliability.

 

This was my biggest worry. I had a CM AIO a couple years ago and the pump (not the fan) had a very faint high-pitched hum that drove me banana's and I eventually threw the thing in the garbage.

 

Ryan from PCper confirmed my worst nightmare in that the FuryX AIO pump has the same high-pitched hum, which he said a lot of reviewers noticed as well. I'm not paying money to hear that noise ever again. He mentioned AMD are working to reduce that noise, but I don't buy it.

[Misanthrope]

LOL Luke said the card was D.O.A. yet I distinctly remember Linus dropping it outside of the new office he probably did brick it then

[zMeul]

when VRAM matters: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/6#.VYqlEHqqpQ4

 

Before we begin looking at this game it should be noted that this game definitely can exceed 4GB of VRAM at 1440p. We saw up to 5GB of usage when the VRAM capacity was there to support it. This game is bottlenecked on every 4GB video card at 1440p with maximum in-game settings.

 

The AMD Radeon R9 290X always struggled in this video game from day one. We were never able to achieve a playable setting using the highest in-game settings. Instead we had to use the built in preset of "Best Quality" which sets the shadow map size to "High" and the view distance to "Half."

 

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is the first video card from AMD to allow us to play at the highest in-game settings at 1440p. We were able to turn up the shadow map size to "Very High" and max out the view distance. The game was playable, but you will notice it does have a lot lower minimum framerate on the Fury X compared to the GTX 980 Ti. There was some stutter here and there as it loaded new game assets in different areas, which did not occur on the GTX 980 Ti.

 

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti was also playable at the highest in-game settings but was 42% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X. We think the difference is so great because the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is being held back in total performance due to not having enough VRAM for the video card to accelerate the game at its fastest.

 

Let's elaborate a bit more on the point above. We can back this up by looking at the total system wattage as we played the game at both "Maximum" settings and at "Best Quality" settings which lessens the burden on VRAM capacity.

 

With the game running at "Maximum" settings on the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X we saw the system wattage only go up to the 340W range, and the performance was a lot lower as we see. When we bumped the game down to "Best Quality" settings the wattage actually increased up to 365W because the burden on VRAM capacity was lessened and the GPU was allowed to work harder.

 

The VRAM bottleneck is like a cap on performance, keeping the true performance of the GPU from shining through. This game is a shining example of how VRAM capacity bottlenecks can lower performance and power demand. Sorry AMD, 4GB isn't enough in this game at 1440p, what do you think is going to happen at 4K?