AMD's own testing? Fury X vs GTX 980Ti

[i_build_nanosuits]

You have to take into account that fury x comes with a liquid cooler on stock

So its fair

we'll wait till we can have LTT, PCper or other trusted reviewers results before we comment on performance if you don't mind...

 

You're going to need a source for that. The only overclocking chart they have released only shows FuryX performance relative to a non-FuryX card with a 100MHz overclock applied.

we'll wait till we can have LTT, PCper or other trusted reviewers results before we comment on performance if you don't mind...

[VagabondWraith]

So the only way for Nvidia to respond at this point is lowering prices of the Titan X (yeah right) and the 980 Ti (plausible)?

[Guest Kloaked]

Looks like 4K on a single card isn't gonna be a thing yet...

 

You have to realize though, different people have different benchmark routes in the game if they don't already come with a benchmark utility. Some places even make biased results. So I would subscribe to Digital Foundry and wait for their benchmarks since they show live graphs in actual gameplay.

 

For all we know the Fury X could be beating the 980 Ti in all benchmarks realistically

[Jamdude]

I'll take these with a pinch of salt until I know the clock speeds and conditions of the cards being tested. The Fury X could have a huge overclock up against a stock reference 980ti.

[Fetzie]

we'll wait till we can have LTT, PCper or other trusted reviewers results before we comment on performance if you don't mind...

 

we'll wait till we can have LTT, PCper or other trusted reviewers results before we comment on performance if you don't mind...

Take a leaf out of your own book then, and stop bandying bullshit around like "LOL THEY PUT OVERCLOCK AGAINST STOCK WITH NO BOOST!" when you know just as little as everybody else.

[MasterRaceFanBoy]

I still belive that most of te people still buy a 1080 or 1440 monitor which we will all be hanppy to have a 970/ 290 i dont care if ppl are dissapointed.. They should start and look at nvidia for a second and scream for lower price! No1 cares of paying $7 a year less with a gtx but too many cares to see just 3 to 8 fps more in a game and for that we should pay $100/200 more.

[dylan43270]

I still belive that most of te people still buy a 1080 or 1440 monitor which we will all be hanppy to have a 970/ 290 i dont care if ppl are dissapointed.. They should start and look at nvidia for a second and scream for lower price! No1 cares of paying $7 a year less with a gtx but too many cares to see just 3 to 8 fps more in a game and for that we should pay $100/200 more.

Your typing scares me.

 

On topic: I hoping to see them stay on top. They may have rebrands of all their other cards, but it in the end it only matters how well they compare at their price, and with the Fury and Fury X we may have a nice win over the 980Ti.

 

I may end up trading in my 970s for some Furys.

[Opcode]

Where did these numbers come from? According to AMD Fury X benches at least ~9 FPS higher in FC4 against that chart.

 

 

Rumor is they are numbers that AMD provides with their review guide. Still, without confirmation it's hard to label them anything other than a rumor.

[M156]

Where did these numbers come from? According to AMD Fury X benches at least ~9 FPS higher in FC4 against that chart.

 

 

 

Because AMDs numbers are clearly not at all fudged, unbiased or skewed to make the Fury look better to the public. 

 

Nope. Never. Not in the history of any product has such a thing happened, and AMD would never cherry pick results for a marketing presentation. 

[LAwLz]

Does Nvidia? Didn't know.

But, I kinda trust the third party people more. Slick "Benchman", for example.

Yep both companies releases benchmarks for their own cards.

 

And yes you're doing the right thing trusting third parties more. Never trust benchmarks straight from the company trying to sell you something when it's not possible to validate their results.

 

 

Because AMDs numbers are clearly not at all fudged, unbiased or skewed to make the Fury look better to the public. 

 

Nope. Never. Not in the history of any product has such a thing happened, and AMD would never cherry pick results for a marketing presentation. 

Well both benchmarks are supposedly from AMD.

If I had to guess I'd say both numbers are real, but the ones in the article might have been the average result after multiple runs while the one at the press conference was the absolute best run out of let's say 10 runs. Or maybe they didn't use the same settings ("ultra settings" doesn't tell the whole story, like which AA if any they used).

This is the reason why you should not trust numbers from the company itself. Even "the same" test can get different results, and companies usually pick the results/tests which makes their product seem good.

[MEC-777]

Yeah, Imma wait for OC3D, LTT, Tek Syndicate, Jayztwocents, Anandtech, Hardwarecanucks, Toms, Techpowerup etc. to review and benchmark them before drawing any definitive conclusions on performance.

 

AMD knows everyone's going to benchmark them anyways, so it wouldn't do much good to lie and toss out inaccurate numbers, but I still think it's best to wait until some of these guys I listed have tested them first.

[Opcode]

Because AMDs numbers are clearly not at all fudged, unbiased or skewed to make the Fury look better to the public. 

 

Nope. Never. Not in the history of any product has such a thing happened, and AMD would never cherry pick results for a marketing presentation. 

You do understand that falsely advertising product performance can end in a lawsuit? Intel suffered it with the P4 for fabricating benchmarks.

 

If they were going to cherry pick numbers why in the hell would they go with FC4 and not Sleeping Dogs where they light a fire under Nvidia's ass according to the chart?

 

This is why I urge anyone to take them as just rumors (they came from Reddit, need I say more) and wait until independent reviews are out before drawing conclusions.

[marldorthegreat]

But the titan x doent do that much better than this. So it will probably be about the same as the titan x

[Fetzie]

But the titan x doent do that much better than this. So it will probably be about the same as the titan x

 

And same performance for two thirds of the price is the very definition of "x killer"

[dimitriianghelov]

reffering to this? http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/374714-the-state-of-uhd-gaming-arstechnica/ - not deleted at all

nope not that , posted it a few hours ago it seems to be gone now

[Opcode]

But the titan x doent do that much better than this. So it will probably be about the same as the titan x

Indeed, it's pretty much borderline with TITAN X performance with these numbers meanwhile being $350 cheaper still.

[marldorthegreat]

Indeed, it's pretty much borderline with TITAN X performance with these numbers meanwhile being $350 cheaper still.

And luke hasnt got his hands on it, so we may see better performance. 

[jbslayer]

 

if this is true, the Fury X is not a Titan X killer

 

 

How is it not a Titan X killer? It performs just a bit better while $350 dollars cheaper.

[Opcode]

And luke hasnt got his hands on it, so we may see better performance. 

What I find interesting is Fury X is easily beating the 980 Ti in Skyrim but its wedged in the performance table and not even in the benchmark chart. Skyrim is still a huge game that a lot of people play so I wonder why they didn't bother adding it to the chart if it's a clear win.

[marldorthegreat]

What I find interesting is Fury X is easily beating the 980 Ti in Skyrim but its wedged in the performance table and not even in the benchmark chart. Skyrim is still a huge game that a lot of people play so I wonder why they didn't bother adding it to the chart if it's a clear win.

Its not known as being a "demanding new title". Like farcry 4 is for example.

[Opcode]

Its not known as being a "demanding new title". Like farcry 4 is for example.

Every other game is listed in both tables, why was Skyrim left out when it's still a fairly demanding game (after mods) and still hugely popular... Showcasing it running better than the competition would only draw in more Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy the high resolution texture packs and all of that. What I'm getting at is the more that you go over both of these tables combined the more fabricated they appear.

[marldorthegreat]

Every other game is listed in both tables, why was Skyrim left out when it's still a fairly demanding game (after mods) and still hugely popular... Showcasing it running better than the competition would only draw in more Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy the high resolution texture packs and all of that. What I'm getting at is the more that you go over both of these tables combined the more fabricated they appear.

You cant use a modded game in benchmarks. As there are too many variables. 

[Opcode]

You cant use a modded game in benchmarks. As there are too many variables. 

You're not understanding what I am saying. If Skyrim is benching higher than the competition then it would attract Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy modding the game later. Skyrim is still a huge game and probably more popular still than a few games listed. Why on earth would they make it seem irrelevant if there's a huge Skyrim crowd to market to? There's no excuses to list every other game and not Skyrim when its clearly suppose to be listed. It's either an error on AMD's behalf (if these are legit) or more evidence of them being fabricated. My nit pick is people passing them off as official (like zMeul likes to do) when we don't have any clue as to where they came from. It would take me about 20 minutes to replicate these charts with entirely different games. There needs to be confirmation otherwise we can sit here and discuss how well/poorly a product performs just to have completely different results after the product goes live.

[Mew]

The fact that they don't include GTA 5 knowing that it would lose to the 980ti there kinda verifies that this is in fact, accurate. 

[marldorthegreat]

You're not understanding what I am saying. If Skyrim is benching higher than the competition then it would attract Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy modding the game later. Skyrim is still a huge game and probably more popular still than a few games listed. Why on earth would they make it seem irrelevant if there's a huge Skyrim crowd to market to? There's no excuses to list every other game and not Skyrim when its clearly suppose to be listed. It's either an error on AMD's behalf (if these are legit) or more evidence of them being fabricated. My nit pick is people passing them off as official (like zMeul likes to do) when we don't have any clue as to where they came from. It would take me about 20 minutes to replicate these charts with entirely different games. There needs to be confirmation otherwise we can sit here and discuss how well/poorly a product performs just to have completely different results after the product goes live.

how many review sites or reviewers use skyrim? Its not a demanding game at all.