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

[BestBOTEU]

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...

can you stop being so butthurt? 

[Opcode]

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

Out of the box? Not so much. Add in a dozen mods and texture packs? It can become fairly heavy. If AMD can capitalize it on having better performance out of the box then it would appeal to people who later mod the game. Why even include Skyrim in their performance chart and not list it to the benchmark chart? Either employee error or fabrication.

[Fetzie]

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. 

 

And how do you know this? Do you have an R9 FuryX? No? I didn't think so.

[Zah]

I want everyone to pay attention to the graphic settings they are using.  AMD is also disabling that hits its cards hard (hairworks), which is a good move from them to make the card look better.  This is now a decision if you want tesselation to work really well, and I don't count Physx because that won't matter with DX12.

 

Either way, this gives NVidia a run for their money, and I'd love to see how NVidia responds because I really only buy their cards.  The titan is pretty much fucking dead though, unless you absolutely need 12 gigs of VRAM.

[typographie]

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

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Titan X is only a bit faster in most games than a 980 Ti, and [according to this benchmark] the Fury X is right around there. If they can approximately match a $999 Titan X for $649, what is that if not a "Titan-killer?"

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Nvidia killed the Titan X themselves with the 980 Ti. It's not really the card AMD needs to beat anymore.

[marldorthegreat]

I want everyone to pay attention to the graphic settings they are using.  AMD is also disabling that hits its cards hard (hairworks), which is a good move from them to make the card look better.  This is now a decision if you want tesselation to work really well, and I don't count Physx because that won't matter with DX12.

 

Either way, this gives NVidia a run for their money, and I'd love to see how NVidia responds because I really only buy their cards.  The titan is pretty much fucking dead though, unless you absolutely need 12 gigs of VRAM.

Or if you just want bragging rights, as its stilll a titan x.

[Zah]

Or if you just want bragging rights, as its stilll a titan x.

I suppose, since people hard tube their systems for nothing but looks, yea, bling factor is a valid thing.

[Mr.Dingle]

 

Im just sitting here hoping the 390/390x prices wont be so inflated here .....

 

Tho i would like to see the Furx X giving Nvidia a run for its money at 1440p and above ....

 

EDIT : if the thing is performing like this with 500Mhz at the HBM memory ... wat about OC

[zMeul]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Titan X is only a bit faster in most games than a 980 Ti, and [according to this benchmark] the Fury X is right around there. If they can approximately match a $999 Titan X for $649, what is that if not a "Titan-killer?"

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Nvidia killed the Titan X themselves with the 980 Ti. It's not really the card AMD needs to beat anymore.

let's put that price aside for a moment and let's compare hardware

Fury X is water cooled, yes? to make a "fair" comparison to Titan X, even with 980Ti, one should not use the reference air cooling; why? it was already established that Titan X with reference blower type is throttling

my point on this, nVidia's decision to stick with a blower type cooling on Titan X was a mistake

what this all means is that Titan X with proper cooling can reach higher boost clocks, am I wrong?!

[Zah]

let's put that price aside for a moment and let's compare hardware

Fury X is water cooled, yes? to make a "fair" comparison to Titan X, even with 980Ti one should not use the reference air cooling; why? it was already established that Titan X with reference blower type is throttling

my point on this, nVidia's decision to stick with a blower type cooling on Titan X was a mistake

what this all means is that Titan X with proper cooling can reach higher boost clocks, am I wrong?!

But with proper water cooling it would be more than twice the price of a Fury X, with not enough more power to justify that price.

[sgloux3470]

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)?

Nvidia will just push gameworks harder.

[zMeul]

But with proper water cooling it would be more than twice the price of a Fury X, with not enough more power to justify that price.

as I said, let's compare hardware to hardware - can we do that please!?

people that bought the Titan X hadn't looked at the price and bought it for what it can do

[RagnarokDel]

It beats the 980ti in gaming across the board at the same price, and the TitanX has the same performance to that margin of error (or closer) as the 980ti. It is also exactly the same as every single launch ever since the HD 5xxx whooped the GTX 4xx series. Every release, either by the red team or the green team, is always marginally ahead of the other.

Why would it need to be a TitanX killer when nVidia killed that one off themselves by pricing the 980ti so low?

Anybody buying a TitanX for gaming right now is an idiot. CUDA development with massive data sets, while being too cheap to buy a proper workstation card, is the only reason to get a TitanX right now, and CUDA is something that AMD can't compete on because the technology is basically hard-coded to only run on nVidia GPUs.

the 980 TI overclocked is actually better then the Titan X and not just a little bit according to Luke's benchmarks on Vessel. In some games(Tomb Raider) as much as 22% better in 4k than the Titan X.

 

http://i.imgur.com/U62KX1f.png

 

 

 

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.

 

It's crazy actually when you think about it. There's 40 000 playing Skyrim right now,4 years after the original release. Meanwhile GTA5 released a few months back and barely has 10k players over it.

[Zah]

as I said, let's compare hardware to hardware - can we do that please!?

people that bought the Titan X hadn't looked at the price and bought it for what it can do

I'd rather compare a watercooled 980ti to a Fury X, as it is closer to the price point.

 

Either way, I want to wait for non-biased reviews (while these are reviews, AMD releasing them makes them biased), who will run tests at all sorts of different settings (some with or without hairworks).

[Techhog]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Titan X is only a bit faster in most games than a 980 Ti, and [according to this benchmark] the Fury X is right around there. If they can approximately match a $999 Titan X for $649, what is that if not a "Titan-killer?"

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure Nvidia killed the Titan X themselves with the 980 Ti. It's not really the card AMD needs to beat anymore.

He's an extremely aggressive and bitter fanboy. Logic is lost to him. And yes, the 980 Ti did kill the Titan X.

[Techhog]

let's put that price aside for a moment and let's compare hardware

Fury X is water cooled, yes? to make a "fair" comparison to Titan X, even with 980Ti, one should not use the reference air cooling; why? it was already established that Titan X with reference blower type is throttling

my point on this, nVidia's decision to stick with a blower type cooling on Titan X was a mistake

what this all means is that Titan X with proper cooling can reach higher boost clocks, am I wrong?!

Now you're just grasping at straws.

[Fetzie]

as I said, let's compare hardware to hardware - can we do that please!?

people that bought the Titan X hadn't looked at the price and bought it for what it can do

 

And nVidia burned them when they released the 980ti TitanX clone for two thirds of the price. Good Guy nVidia.

[Techhog]

as I said, let's compare hardware to hardware - can we do that please!?

No.

 

You defended the Titan Z against the 295X2, didn't you?

[VagabondWraith]

Nvidia will just push gameworks harder.

I would hope they wouldn't resort to dirty tactics, but not out of the realm of possibility.

[Nova Dwagon]

this may not be true or not, but i am glad AMD are pushing forward, that means nvidia will create a new card that will beet AMD and improve tech for every one making 4k gaming easy to do

AMD are a good company, lots of people forget without AMD nvidia become expensive and/or lazy as there the only one doing it

[Bingbing10]

i dont understand such flaming between people supporting AMD and Nividia. Why dont people just take them on a card to card basis? each company has better cards in different areas when pricing and performance are taken into consideration. 

[typographie]

what this all means is that Titan X with proper cooling can reach higher boost clocks, am I wrong?!

 

It's my understanding that Nvidia only allows the Titan X to be sold with a reference cooler, and you can't compare the Fury X to an imaginary Titan. Thermal throttling is a factor that can certainly make a product less competitive, and that's Nvidia's fault if it does. That potentially makes it a worse product, just like it did with the reference R9 290/290X. Sure, you could cool the Titan X with a third-party liquid cooler, but by then you may have doubled the cost of the Fury X.

 

Point is, the Titan X is out to pasture and in the real world the Fury X is going up against the 980 Ti. We'll see how it does when someone other than AMD are providing the benchmark data.

[Fetzie]

It's my understanding that Nvidia only allows the Titan X to be sold with a reference cooler. You can't compare the Fury X to an imaginary Titan. Thermal throttling is a factor that can certainly make a product less competitive, and that's Nvidia's fault if it does. Sure, you could cool the Titan X with a third-party liquid cooler, but by then you may have doubled the cost of the Fury X.

 

Point is, the Titan X is out to pasture and in the real world the Fury X is going up against the 980 Ti. We'll see how it does when someone other than AMD are providing the benchmark data.

 

And if you change the cooler on the TitanX to make it not thermal throttle, you invalidate the warranty.

[M156]

And if you change the cooler on the TitanX to make it not thermal throttle, you invalidate the warranty.

 

Umm...several brands ship the Titan X with their custom cooler and your warranty is in fact NOT invalidated when you swap it. EVGA infact doesn't give a shit what cooler you use, so long as you send it back under RMA with the original cooler attached. 

[Fetzie]

Umm...several brands ship the Titan X with their custom cooler and your warranty is in fact NOT invalidated when you swap it. EVGA infact doesn't give a shit what cooler you use, so long as you send it back under RMA with the original cooler attached. 

 

Are those warranties USA/Canada/Mexico only? IIRC EVGA's "lifetime" warranty is only valid in North America.