AMD Fury X Far Cry 4 game performance from AMD

[Opcode]

And along with that AMD will validate my purchase of a Fury X. Seriously, I am happy that AMD has been able to pull this off against Nvidia. With all odds against them in funding, they managed to do it. Now we will have to wait and see what the response is from Nvidia.

They have no retaliation. They just launched the TITAN X a few months ago and the GTX 980 Ti literally just came out. The only step they have is "TITAN X2" (dual GM200 card). Which AMD has already shown off a GTX 560 sized card rocking two Fiji chips. AMD has far better multiple GPU drivers as well. The soup is too thick for Nvidia to swim in it anymore if these numbers are validated across the board.

[Pizzatime6]

Now if only they can make good drivers I may want one in the future for my second pc....

[Hunter7263]

I'm gonna go with those benchmarks are a load of bullshit on this one.

 

I wonder how much power it's gonna draw, I'm guessing that you're gonna need at least a 1000W PSU to have two in crossfire.

Why is this so unrealistic? According to the e3 presentation the memory takes far less power and there is less of it so there is more power for the gpu. I also read that the gpu is using a smaller manufacturing technique at 20nm vs the 28nm on maxwell. Also 2 titan Xs can be put on like 600watts

[Opcode]

I'm gonna go with those benchmarks are a load of bullshit on this one.

 

I wonder how much power it's gonna draw, I'm guessing that you're gonna need at least a 1000W PSU to have two in crossfire.

A single Fury X draws 275w of power. So you can Crossfire two with a quality 750w PSU...

[Hazorazor]

Thank goodness I waited. They sure knew how to impress with their actual new products.

[Arreat]

This look very nice , but lets focus on the small star next to the Ultra* settings , there is something there , we don't know what ultra in this case is and what is the level of AA . The benchmark from techpowerup for the reference is , as they always say 4xMSAA if the game has the option , yes even in 4k . So that might not be the perfect perspective .

[TheKDub]

Why is this so unrealistic? According to the e3 presentation the memory takes far less power and there is less of it so there is more power for the gpu. I also read that the gpu is using a smaller manufacturing technique at 20nm vs the 28nm on maxwell. Also 2 titan Xs can be put on like 600watts

 

I was making a jab at AMD for how they tend to have pretty damn high power usages on their processors and gpus

 

But don't forget the titan x has one 6 pin and one 8 pin power connector, whereas the fury x has two 8 pins.

 

Unless it's a multi-gpu card, I don't see how exactly those numbers could be legit.

[Gibbons]

Farcry 4 did favor the better memory setups and the R9 FuryX was likely to rock UHD but that's insane. There has to be some targeted driver optimization at work here. Even half that performance boost over the 980ti would be great.

 

Absolutely amazing if this is accurate across most games. Really hope the Beijing crew aren't bullshitting.

[Guest]

So a 2 year wait isn't entirely wasted huh.... OMG show us how the nano performs  :wub:

 

The nano is supposed to perform similarly to a 290x, while drawing roughly 175W of power. 

 

I was making a jab at AMD for how they tend to have pretty damn high power usages on their processors and gpus 

 

But don't forget the titan x has one 6 pin and one 8 pin power connector, whereas the fury x has two 8 pins.

 

Unless it's a multi-gpu card, I don't see how exactly those numbers could be legit.

 

You can't base power consumption purely on the power connectors. AMD is notorious for overbuilding the power delivery on their reference cards, so the additional power can easily be used to overclock. 

[Dabombinable]

So if these numbers are valid AMD's $649 card stomps GM200 into the ground with 1/3 of the memory?

 

Well apparently you need more vRAM if your using GDDR5 due to the relatively low bandwidth. HBM might have solved quite a few problems for AMD.

[Guest]

Well apparently you need more vRAM if your using GDDR5 due to the relatively low bandwidth. HBM might have solved quite a few problems for AMD.

 

Not true, not true at all. HBM1 is simply limited to 4GB, which might be problematic. People have argued that it will be less of an issue because swapping memory can be done faster, that's it. 

[Humbug]

So pretty much the Fury was the only good thing they released?

No- we got 4 good things, 4 new models with HBM based on Fiji

 

Fury

Fury X

R9 nano

Dual Fury

 

[Dabombinable]

Not true, not true at all. HBM1 is simply limited to 4GB, which might be problematic. People have argued that it will be less of an issue because swapping memory can be done faster, that's it. 

WAN show.

[Derranged]

They have no retaliation. They just launched the TITAN X a few months ago and the GTX 980 Ti literally just came out. The only step they have is "TITAN X2" (dual GM200 card). Which AMD has already shown off a GTX 560 sized card rocking two Fiji chips. AMD has far better multiple GPU drivers as well. The soup is too thick for Nvidia to swim in it anymore if these numbers are validated across the board.

What I sort of meant is either hardware next year (Pascal), or driver updates. There's the potential scenario that Nvidia has been holding back on the driver side until AMD made their move. However I hope this isn't the case.

[Lethal Seraph]

I wonder how far down the line is the 2nd gen. I'm only settling for dual Fiji or nothing.

[Humbug]

Not true, not true at all. HBM1 is simply limited to 4GB, which might be problematic. People have argued that it will be less of an issue because swapping memory can be done faster, that's it. 

Apart from the faster memmory swapping AMD had made a bold claim that current gen GPUs and games are unintelligent and wasteful in terms of what they store in VRAM and they claim that this will be alleviated with a more intelligent driver for the Fury. Once again the proof will be in the independent reviews...

 

expressed confidence in AMD's ability to work around this capacity constraint. In fact, he said that current GPUs aren't terribly efficient with their memory capacity simply because GDDR5's architecture required ever-larger memory capacities in order to extract more bandwidth. As a result, AMD "never bothered to put a single engineer on using frame buffer memory better," because memory capacities kept growing. Essentially, that capacity was free, while engineers were not. Macri classified the utilization of memory capacity in current Radeon operation as "exceedingly poor" and said the "amount of data that gets touched sitting in there is embarrassing."

With HBM, he said, "we threw a couple of engineers at that problem," which will be addressed solely via the operating system and Radeon driver software. "We're not asking anybody to change their games."

http://techreport.co...ory-explained/2

 

We will have to look closely at the independant reviews to see if Fury hits a VRAM bottleneck and stutters in modern games at 4K. If it does bad news for AMD. If not they're good...

[Deletive]

r7 370 is a 1024SP card???? it says it is 

[Agent181]

So a 2 year wait isn't entirely wasted huh.... OMG show us how the nano performs  :wub:

on amd's twitch channel I was asking one of them and the nano is trying to hit 5k so it can handle most games at 4k with 60 fps

[Opcode]

I was making a jab at AMD for how they tend to have pretty damn high power usages on their processors and gpus

 

But don't forget the titan x has one 6 pin and one 8 pin power connector, whereas the fury x has two 8 pins.

 

Unless it's a multi-gpu card, I don't see how exactly those numbers could be legit.

Do you even AMD bro?

 

Seriously though, the only reason the Fury X uses 2x 8-pin is because it's an overclocking enthusiast card.

 

Farcry 4 did favor the better memory setups and the R9 FuryX was likely to rock UHD but that's insane. There has to be some targeted driver optimization at work here. Even half that performance boost over the 980ti would be great.

 

Absolutely amazing if this is accurate across most games. Really hope the Beijing crew aren't bullshitting.

If these numbers hold true then something tells me these slides might be valid, just using the R9 390X branding before AMD decided on a custom moniker.

 

 

 

What I sort of meant is either hardware next year (Pascal), or driver updates. There's the potential scenario that Nvidia has been holding back on the driver side until AMD made their move. However I hope this isn't the case.

Actually, Nvidia might be in the pit deeper than you would think. They've already optimized their drivers for a threaded topology. Which means once DirectX 12 rolls around AMD hardware is going to see a bigger performance improvement than Nvidia. After we see Pascal we will then see Arctic Islands where I predict that we will see a new Fiji GPU packing 6000+ SPUs.

[MrDynamicMan]

A single Fury X draws 275w of power. So you can Crossfire two with a quality 750w PSU...

Cpu

[Notional]

This look very nice , but lets focus on the small star next to the Ultra* settings , there is something there , we don't know what ultra in this case is and what is the level of AA . The benchmark from techpowerup for the reference is , as they always say 4xMSAA if the game has the option , yes even in 4k . So that might not be the perfect perspective .

 

I noticed that too. I can only assume it says something like all GameWorks bs off. 4xMSAA at 4k is just stupid waste of everyones time.

[Gibbons]

r7 370 is a 1024SP card???? it says it is 

It's an overclocked 265. I think the benchmarks should be higher if it were a 270x.

[Notional]

I was making a jab at AMD for how they tend to have pretty damn high power usages on their processors and gpus

 

But don't forget the titan x has one 6 pin and one 8 pin power connector, whereas the fury x has two 8 pins.

 

Unless it's a multi-gpu card, I don't see how exactly those numbers could be legit.

 

At 1,5-2x the performance per watt to a 290x card, it's not really that difficult to think it uses 275 watts. Especially due to HBM's low power use.

 

Also don't forget that the Fury X has to power a water cooling pump and a 12cm fan with those connectors. Probably a LOT of overhead for OC as well.

 

With 4096 stream processors, I can.

[kacper]

It really depends what they were doing in FC4 during benchmark. It could be meaningless.

 

Anyways, it's AMD so it uses as much power as small village and melts alluminum cases. 

I'm glad that Maxwell is so efficent so it can run using AAA batteries and under ambient temps.

[Opcode]

Cpu

What about it? If you're referring to power consumption than there's plenty left over to push the rest of the system.

 

 

A SS-750KM3 would do the job nicely.