AMD Fury X Far Cry 4 game performance from AMD

[Notional]

No card has the proper horsepower to run properly at either 5K and 8K, and if you do play at those resolutions you will have two or more of these cards. My point here is with DX12 memory pooling it will allow for 8 to 16GBs of HBM to become available.

 

Actually FuryX ran Tomb Raider on 5k at 60 fps ultra settings. Didn't seem to be an issue there.

 

Either way, synthetic benchmarks doesn't say anything useful. And 8k doesn't exist in any practical product for anyone in years. 5K makes no sense for gaming, but ultrawide 3440x1440 will gain large market share in the coming years.

[Stagea]

No card has the proper horsepower to run properly at either 5K and 8K, and if you do play at those resolutions you will have two or more of these cards. My point here is with DX12 memory pooling it will allow for 8 to 16GBs of HBM to become available.

 

I hope developers start to optimize their code to allow for buffer stacking. Otherwise, 390X Crossfire would outperform Fury X Crossfire above UHD/4K resolutions.

[Derranged]

Actually FuryX ran Tomb Raider on 5k at 60 fps ultra settings. Didn't seem to be an issue there.

Either way, synthetic benchmarks doesn't say anything useful. And 8k doesn't exist in any practical product for anyone in years. 5K makes no sense for gaming, but ultrawide 3440x1440 will gain large market share in the coming years.

However if you play a game like Shadows of Mordor, or Fallout 4 with texture packs

In those cases it would require in excess of 4GBs for 4K. Tomb Raider isn't a title I would say is as resource intensive as other games.

[Notional]

However if you play a game like Shadows of Mordor, or Fallout 4 with texture packs

In those cases it would require in excess of 4GBs for 4K. Tomb Raider isn't a title I would say is as resource intensive as other games.

 

Remember that Shadow of Mordor's ultra textures, was just the high textures, but uncompressed. So the difference is miniscule, and I assume alpha compression in GCN would make that a lot smaller in size. But again, AMD said their engineers has been focused on better memory management. I doubt Shadow Actually needs 6GB on any given image; especially with alpha compression.

[Derranged]

Remember that Shadow of Mordor's ultra textures, was just the high textures, but uncompressed. So the difference is miniscule, and I assume alpha compression in GCN would make that a lot smaller in size. But again, AMD said their engineers has been focused on better memory management. I doubt Shadow Actually needs 6GB on any given image; especially with alpha compression.

True, I guess we wil just have to wait and see.

[Opcode]

A synthetic bench seems to show that a 4GB buffer will be really short at very high resolutions (in this case, 5K and 8K):

Who's going to be running 5k and 8k anyways. A single Fury X will drive 5k just fine as we've seen at E3. So that alleviates multiple monitor users. We won't see 8k for a very long time as much as the industry likes to imply that it's right around the corner. GPU horsepower is just not there and it wont be there for many years.

[zMeul]

Its been said before. Above 4GB of vRAM is not needed at 4K with HBM due to the sheer amount of bandwidth. However with GDDR5 8GB is needed because it has lower bandwidth and therefore can't have data transferred as rapidly. Its no coincidence that an R9 290X 4GB with higher memory bandwidth than a GTX 970 does better at higher resolutions.

Take a moment to look between the 1440p memory utilization and compare it with the utilization at 4K. You will find some very large increases in VRAM usage, depending on the game, which very much makes sense.

 

Let's start with the GeForce GTX 980 on the very right side. The only game that seems to hit right at the VRAM wall is Dying Light at 1440p and 4K. FC4 comes close, and so does GTA V. Now look over to the GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

 

On the GeForce GTX 980 Ti we clearly exceed 4GB of VRAM in Dying Light at 1440p and 4K. We also exceed 4GB of VRAM at 4K in GTA V and Far Cry 4. What this shows is that these games, the GTX 980 cards "want to" and can, exceed the 4GB framebuffer if more VRAM is exposed. This means the 4GB of VRAM on the GTX 980 is limiting these cards, but it is not on the 6GB GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

...

VRAM

As you can see from our gaming lineup (which is using many new games released this year) we aren't seeing much demand over 4GB just yet. There are some hints that some games might need more; Dying Light for example, and possibly Far Cry 4 and GTA V. We can at least say this, 4GB of VRAM should be the MINIMUM for running games at 1440p today. If you were able to have 6GB of VRAM or more, you will be ensured that games coming this year and next should run fine, as far as VRAM goes at 1440p.

At 4K though 4GB of VRAM is clearly not enough. At 4K you want at a MINIMUM 6GB. It is possible though that more may actually help as you start increasing the number of video cards in SLI. 6GB might actually not be enough for some games in 4K when SLI is involved, we will see.

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti fits in extremely well at 1440p and should have fairly good longevity as a contender in the 1440p space. However, it may not be the "perfect" 4K card when SLI comes into play. The TITAN X with 12GB of VRAM, could potentially show its benefits there, or any card that might have 8GB of VRAM as well coming down the road.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/15/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/10#.VYIN1DCqpQ4 - Monday , June 15, 2015

[Dabombinable]

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/15/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/10#.VYIN1DCqpQ4 - Monday , June 15, 2015

That is what's expected with GDDR5. HBM and AMD's implementation will help solve that.

[Derranged]

Who's going to be running 5k and 8k anyways. A single Fury X will drive 5k just fine as we've seen at E3. So that alleviates multiple monitor users. We won't see 8k for a very long time as much as the industry likes to imply that it's right around the corner. GPU horsepower is just not there and it wont be there for many years.

People might not run 8K, but triple 4K setups do exist. Multiple GPUs solve the limitations of a single GPU, the only issue is the current support. Maybe DX12 will help open the multi-GPU technology up to bring actual scaling performance across all 4 GPUs.

[ANewFace]

Everyone remember now this is a dual GPU card, it has downsides compared to a single GPU card

[Opcode]

Everyone remember now this is a dual GPU card, it has downsides compared to a single GPU card

Fury X is single GPU.

[sgloux3470]

This outperforms my 980 SLI set up, to put it in perspective.

 

I get around ~40-50 FPS on Ultra 4K.

[Dabombinable]

This outperforms my 980 SLI set up, to put it in perspective.

 

I get around ~40-50 FPS on Ultra 4K.

It does? :blink:

 

AMD might have just saved their asses. (Well half anyway, Zen needs to succeed as well).

[ANewFace]

Fury X is single GPU.

Whoops read the title wrong sorry.

[M156]

It does? :blink:

 

AMD might have just saved their asses. (Well half anyway, Zen needs to succeed as well).

 

AMD didn't save their asses with a single high end GPU that will not exceed 10% of their total shipments. 

 

Rebrands do not a release make, no wonder AMD doesn't want anyone talking about the other 3xx, sorry, 2xx cards. 

[niofalpha]

The benchmarks on the Vessel video today show the 980 Ti Stock getting ~10 More FPS than was shown in the Benchmarks in the OP...

[sgloux3470]

It does? :blink:

 

AMD might have just saved their asses. (Well half anyway, Zen needs to succeed as well).

 

Yup.  Especially if they're using the Ultra preset that has 4x MSAA (which I've disabled manually.)

 

FC4's SLi scaling is mediocre though.  

[ivan134]

The benchmarks on the Vessel video today show the 980 Ti Stock getting ~10 More FPS than was shown in the Benchmarks in the OP...

 

The 2 benchmarks in the OP are obviously not using the same settings. Yours is closer to the 2nd one in the OP. Regardless of which setting AMD is using in their benchmark (whether the 1st or 2nd in the OP), Fury X seems to spank the 980 ti. We just have to wait for independent reviewers to see just how much CEO math is going in AMD's benchmark.

[mr moose]

It does? :blink:

 

AMD might have just saved their asses. (Well half anyway, Zen needs to succeed as well).

 

It might but only if two things happen, it continues to perform better than the 980ti and is priced cheap enough they actually gain sales over the 980.  AMD are in such a financial pickle that they really are going to have to nail this hard if it is going to play a significant role in their comeback.

 

 

 

Now a shame I have to do this for those who like to skim through and then tell me I am wrong, but I will repeat the above sentence again and BOLD the crucial junctures so people don't exaggerate what I am saying.

 

It might but only if two things happen, it continues to perform better than the 980ti and is priced cheap enough they actually gain sales over the 980.  AMD are in such a financial pickle that they really are going to have to nail this hard if it is going to play a significant role in their comeback.

[MegaDave91]

The benchmarks on the Vessel video today show the 980 Ti Stock getting ~10 More FPS than was shown in the Benchmarks in the OP...

*snip*

Their sample Titan X's boost clock is terrible reaching a mere 12mhz higher than the guaranteed boost (1075). Compare that to my Titan X which boosts to 1202.

[iwasaperson]

I can't buy another AMD card until their Linux support is improved. I have a 7870 right now and Catalyst seriously needs improvement on Linux. Here's hoping for AMDGPU being amazing because this price/performance (if true) smashes Nvidia.

[Humbug]

It does? :blink:

AMD might have just saved their asses. (Well half anyway, Zen needs to succeed as well).

It's totally Zen which has to save AMD and even Lisa Su admitted as much.

Launching great high end GPUs is not a surprise given AMD's track record of doing so successfully over many years. Fiji was expected to be great.

CPUs are a different story, it's been so many years since they were performance competitive with Intel and it got so bad they had to throw in the towel and concede the lucrative server business and even on desktop they ended up having to sell big CPUs at budget prices with almost no margins.

[Deletive]

AMD didn't save their asses with a single high end GPU that will not exceed 10% of their total shipments. 

 

Rebrands do not a release make, no wonder AMD doesn't want anyone talking about the other 3xx, sorry, 2xx cards. 

 

360x is the same performance as 750ti for less

370x beats out the 750ti... cheaper

380 beats out the 960 in most games and is cheaper too

390/390x it's faster then a 970, price isn't amazing though but it can improve

Fury x faster then a 980ti for the same price.

 

That is pretty much price range over 100$, AMD now has fairly good performance per watt, and much better compute then Maxwell. They can be storming into other markets with this card too.

[Watsyurdeal]

I may consider it....but idk, how good is AMD's Shadowplay competitor?

I'm really liking that so far, plus I like the frequent updates from Nvidia compared to AMD. The software, even though it's a small thing, I do sorta prefer over AMD.

But if anyone can provide me with some extra info that'd be nice.

[ROK]

rape