Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

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

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...

| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 4.89ghz - 1.21v  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X Trio 2ghz OC  RAM: 32GB T-Force Delta RGB 3066mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Rift S

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

CPU: Intel Core i7 7820X Cooling: Corsair Hydro Series H110i GTX Mobo: MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 (3000MHz/16GB 2x8) SSD: 2x Samsung 850 Evo (250/250GB) + Samsung 850 Pro (512GB) GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE (W/ EVGA Hybrid Kit) Case: Corsair Graphite Series 760T (Black) PSU: SeaSonic Platinum Series (860W) Monitor: Acer Predator XB241YU (165Hz / G-Sync) Fan Controller: NZXT Sentry Mix 2 Case Fans: Intake - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Radiator - 2x Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM / Rear Exhaust - 1x Noctua NF-F12 iPPC-3000 PWM

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Intel i7 5820K (4.5 GHz) | MSI X99A MPower | 32 GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz | Asus RoG STRIX GTX 1080ti OC | Samsung 951 m.2 nVME 512GB | Crucial MX200 1000GB | Western Digital Caviar Black 2000GB | Noctua NH-D15 | Fractal Define R5 | Seasonic 860 Platinum | Logitech G910 | Sennheiser 599 | Blue Yeti | Logitech G502

 

Nikon D500 | Nikon 300mm f/4 PF  | Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 | Nikon 50mm f/1.8 | Tamron 70-210 f/4 VCII | Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 | Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 | Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP Di VC USD Macro | Neewer 750II

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The blood on to your heart start pumping faster when you notice me.


But is ok.


Judge me for my nickname, my avatar and for the low amounts of posts I have. I will keep your heart beat raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Internets Machine: Intel 4690k w/ Be Quiet! Pure Rock 4.7Ghz. MSI Krait z97. 16GB Crucial Ballistix Sport Ram. MSI GTX 970 SLI 1520mhz. 500GB Samsung EVO 840  & 3TB WD Blue Drive. Rosewill 1000w Modular PSU. Corsair Air 540

My Beats Yo: Desktop:SMSL SA-160 Amp, KEF Q100 w/ Dayton 100w Sub Theater: Micca MB42X-C x3, MB42X x2, COVO-S x2 w/Dayton 120w Sub Headphones:  HIFiMan HE-400i, PSB M4U2, Philips Fidelio X2, Modded Fostex T50RP, ATH-M50, NVX XPT100, Phillips SHP9500, Pioneer SE-A1000, Hyper X Cloud 1&2, CHC Silverado, Superlux 668B

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

DCVD6ZS.png

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

What is hype may never die - Cleganebowl 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

My Systems:

Main - Work + Gaming:

Spoiler

Woodland Raven: Ryzen 2700X // AMD Wraith RGB // Asus Prime X570-P // G.Skill 2x 8GB 3600MHz DDR4 // Radeon RX Vega 56 // Crucial P1 NVMe 1TB M.2 SSD // Deepcool DQ650-M // chassis build in progress // Windows 10 // Thrustmaster TMX + G27 pedals & shifter

F@H Rig:

Spoiler

FX-8350 // Deepcool Neptwin // MSI 970 Gaming // AData 2x 4GB 1600 DDR3 // 2x Gigabyte RX-570 4G's // Samsung 840 120GB SSD // Cooler Master V650 // Windows 10

 

HTPC:

Spoiler

SNES PC (HTPC): i3-4150 @3.5 // Gigabyte GA-H87N-Wifi // G.Skill 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 // Asus Dual GTX 1050Ti 4GB OC // AData SP600 128GB SSD // Pico 160XT PSU // Custom SNES Enclosure // 55" LG LED 1080p TV  // Logitech wireless touchpad-keyboard // Windows 10 // Build Log

Laptops:

Spoiler

MY DAILY: Lenovo ThinkPad T410 // 14" 1440x900 // i5-540M 2.5GHz Dual-Core HT // Intel HD iGPU + Quadro NVS 3100M 512MB dGPU // 2x4GB DDR3L 1066 // Mushkin Triactor 480GB SSD // Windows 10

 

WIFE'S: Dell Latitude E5450 // 14" 1366x768 // i5-5300U 2.3GHz Dual-Core HT // Intel HD5500 // 2x4GB RAM DDR3L 1600 // 500GB 7200 HDD // Linux Mint 19.3 Cinnamon

 

EXPERIMENTAL: Pinebook // 11.6" 1080p // Manjaro KDE (ARM)

NAS:

Spoiler

Home NAS: Pentium G4400 @3.3 // Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 // 2x 4GB DDR4 2400 // Intel HD Graphics // Kingston A400 120GB SSD // 3x Seagate Barracuda 2TB 7200 HDDs in RAID-Z // Cooler Master Silent Pro M 1000w PSU // Antec Performance Plus 1080AMG // FreeNAS OS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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" :)

Intel i7 5820K (4.5 GHz) | MSI X99A MPower | 32 GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz | Asus RoG STRIX GTX 1080ti OC | Samsung 951 m.2 nVME 512GB | Crucial MX200 1000GB | Western Digital Caviar Black 2000GB | Noctua NH-D15 | Fractal Define R5 | Seasonic 860 Platinum | Logitech G910 | Sennheiser 599 | Blue Yeti | Logitech G502

 

Nikon D500 | Nikon 300mm f/4 PF  | Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 | Nikon 50mm f/1.8 | Tamron 70-210 f/4 VCII | Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 | Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 | Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP Di VC USD Macro | Neewer 750II

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Hello This is my "signature". DO YOU LIKE BORIS????? http://strawpoll.me/4669614

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hello This is my "signature". DO YOU LIKE BORIS????? http://strawpoll.me/4669614

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Hello This is my "signature". DO YOU LIKE BORIS????? http://strawpoll.me/4669614

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Hello This is my "signature". DO YOU LIKE BORIS????? http://strawpoll.me/4669614

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×