AMD Fury X

[mr moose]

1-ah okay, makes sense.

 

2. I think the issue in the pre-alphas and the in-devs. People with those assume a finished product, and people assume for it to be bug free and optimized. well, a alpha is to get features, then beta is to fix bugs/optimizations. People don't understand that. so now pre-alphas are half optimized, half features, sorta kinda works, we wasted time to fix things that will just get broken anyway pieces of software. and because of that and peoples expectations, now we get less from games. then AAA games, they fit the mold of half optimized/half buggy software now because of that movement for games. This may be coming to hardware.

 

 

that or, they advertised the date so much, they may of not been able to push the date back until it was ready. that and so much competition with nvidia, they would not be able to wait and lose sales. 

 

yer, for me it's pretty black and white, if the product isn't finished (regardless if it's a game or hardware) then either don't sell it at full price or just don't sell it. Day one patches are proof the product shipped before known issues were resolved.

[Kyuubixchidori]

yer, for me it's pretty black and white, if the product isn't finished (regardless if it's a game or hardware) then either don't sell it at full price or just don't sell it. Day one patches are proof the product shipped before known issues were resolved.

Exaclty. They why alphas are okay IMO, they state its a work in progress and because of that you get a discount.

I know its not a belief many will agree with, but the reason delevopers don't care about pc is because they have to optimization for any combo of hardware, have to come up with much more textures and details, for what? Many pc triple A titles hardly get 60$ a copy. How many people would work twice as hard at their job to get paid half as much?

IMHO that's why dlc exists. It makes sense for pc gamers to pay more then console, as they are getting more from delevopers. To expect more every year yet pay less? They have to cut corners somewhere to stay profitable.

I'm I saying its right? Not at all. Pc gamers treat developers poorely IMHO, and us getting a crap product is what's going to happen. Shouldn't be that way but it is

[GzeroD]

 Day one patches are proof the product shipped before known issues were resolved.

 

They are also proof that thing can be found between the time that physical copies can be made and shipped, Even on a well made game.

[mr moose]

Exaclty. They why alphas are okay IMO, they state its a work in progress and because of that you get a discount.

I know its not a belief many will agree with, but the reason delevopers don't care about pc is because they have to optimization for any combo of hardware, have to come up with much more textures and details, for what? Many pc triple A titles hardly get 60$ a copy. How many people would work twice as hard at their job to get paid half as much?

IMHO that's why dlc exists. It makes sense for pc gamers to pay more then console, as they are getting more from delevopers. To expect more every year yet pay less? They have to cut corners somewhere to stay profitable.

I'm I saying its right? Not at all. Pc gamers treat developers poorely IMHO, and us getting a crap product is what's going to happen. Shouldn't be that way but it is

 

 

They are also proof that thing can be found between the time that physical copies can be made and shipped, Even on a well made game.

 

The thing is they never used to,  back before the internet made it easy for them to fix on the fly after release. There was hardly a game that had bugs in the code.  All the way back to the amiga, C64, Vic20, Microbee's and IBM compat systems.  Not a single game came out that didn't work the way it was supposed to.   I don't mind paying less for a product in development. but never full price for half arsed job.

[Hunter7263]

I think we might have lucked out. Apparently they had the wrong drivers out when most testers where doing their card. Linus's might have the most accurate if he does his own.

[Dabombinable]

The thing is they never used to,  back before the internet made it easy for them to fix on the fly after release. There was hardly a game that had bugs in the code.  All the way back to the amiga, C64, Vic20, Microbee's and IBM compat systems.  Not a single game cam out that didn't work the way it was supposed to.   I don't paying less for a product in development. but never full price for half arsed job.

TBH, apart from the cost of a new console with no backwards compatibility, the constant bugs in games that get released on new consoles is the reason why I'm sticking with my original Xbox. Because its going to last a long time since the DVD drive is rarely used, and its HDD allows me to play games and movies off it (#softmodMR) the newer consoles just don't offer me any benefits (newer games aren't a benefit when I have more fun with the older ones-that and unlike when I bought my Xbox, the Xbone and 360 aren't more powerful than my desktop while costing less than an upgrade). And besides that, I can stream/play movies off my legacy server anyway, so its DVD drive and HDD take more of a thrashing than the ones in my Xbox.

[Casperian]

Exaclty. They why alphas are okay IMO, they state its a work in progress and because of that you get a discount.

I know its not a belief many will agree with, but the reason delevopers don't care about pc is because they have to optimization for any combo of hardware, have to come up with much more textures and details, for what? Many pc triple A titles hardly get 60$ a copy. How many people would work twice as hard at their job to get paid half as much?

IMHO that's why dlc exists. It makes sense for pc gamers to pay more then console, as they are getting more from delevopers. To expect more every year yet pay less? They have to cut corners somewhere to stay profitable.

I'm I saying its right? Not at all. Pc gamers treat developers poorely IMHO, and us getting a crap product is what's going to happen. Shouldn't be that way but it is

Actually they don't need to fully create higher res textures or models for PC. The ZBrush sculpts for games often exceed 30M polys - which are retopologised and displacement + normal maps are baked - and they just scale them down different amounts. Same with textures, artists don't work on 1024x1024 textures - assuming that is what final res they are going to be - they may work on 16384x16384 to get better quality and control, and downscale to 1024x1024 so it can be run in a game engine.

 

Also PC games are only cheaper than console because PC isn't owned by anyone and they don't have the Sony/MS tax to pay (apparently that is a considerable amount). Having said that, I'd rather pay $100 for a game with a great story and/or lots of content than $60 for a annual franchise.

 

Personally I don't think studios should be let off for messing up. I'm not saying that we should hate on them but as the people buying the games, we have the right to voice our opinions. If a studio makes a bad port, why should we say "It's okay, making games is hard"? 

These studios are professional and as such should be held to account. Now it seems the only way to get studios to listen is not buy the product, luckily PC isn't a small market anymore and we can have an impact.

[Kowalamaster]

It probably arived Fine and linus killed it when he droped it out of the car.

[ErickS89]

I'd still wait for proper drivers which should arrive before or on the release of the Fury X, but my only gripe is the 4GBs...   4GB is not enough for 4K Ultra! 

My hope is that with the Fury card Sapphire or another board member will release an 8GB or even a 6GB card, I'd prefer 8 as it has headroom. 

 

 

It probably arived Fine and linus killed it when he droped it out of the car.

 

Linus is officially a GPU killer, call the police! We have a madman on the loose!

[as96]

We need to wait for decent drivers to check the actual performance of this card.

[AxelRantila]

Did Linus really drop his Fury outside of a car?

I guess AMD should talk to Corsair about packaging.

[GoodN1ght]

Did Linus really drop his Fury outside of a car?

I guess AMD should talk to Corsair about packaging.

Or you know, don't just casually drop a 650$ US GPU.

If i were AMD i wouldn't send him shit again. Send a free flagship GPU and you just drop it and be like <<lol>> holy smokes. 

[cesrai]

Would still get a 980Ti over this if I had the budget.

[Kowalamaster]

I'd still wait for proper drivers which should arrive before or on the release of the Fury X, but my only gripe is the 4GBs...   4GB is not enough for 4K Ultra! 

My hope is that with the Fury card Sapphire or another board member will release an 8GB or even a 6GB card, I'd prefer 8 as it has headroom. 

 

 

 

Linus is officially a GPU killer, call the police! We have a madman on the loose!

You do realize that the Ram cannot be just soldered on like "old" cards due to the ram being on the silicone die of the GPU. Also if you look at 4k results it starts boxing with the titan and that only got 12gb of ram sooooooo considering there is an 8gb difference i dont think 4gb is not enought for 4K but it would have been nice to see more than 4GB of ram indeedly.

[gcubed]

Did Linus really drop his Fury outside of a car?

I guess AMD should talk to Corsair about packaging.

 

Nah, the card is fine. Linus just ran out of zipties to attach the card to his test rig so is waiting for a resupply.

[mr moose]

I just watched one of the wan shows where Linus said during their testing of the fury X they weren't happy with how low the scores were.  I really appreciate that they didn't post the results and in fact opted to assume it was a dodgy sample (not having any other benches to compare to).  This proves to me that the peer review nature of independent benchmarking is alive and well and that the results you guys give us are as near to legit as humanly possible.

 

Cheers.

[gcubed]

We need to take the performance benchmarks people are doing with a grain of salt. Performance will increase as the drivers get better.

 

Even with improved drivers, the R9 Fury X will never be a 980 TI, but it is competitive. The two short comings this card has to the 980 TI are overclocking and VRAM. Overclocked 980 TI's will beat this thing every time, but there are quite a few gamers that don't overclock so to those people overclocking is moot. With today's games, most don't go over 3.5 GB VRAM, so their is still room for mods on the Fury just as long as you don't go too crazy. Of course if you go really, really crazy with mods, you could probably eat up all of a Titan X's VRAM.

[mr moose]

We need to take the performance benchmarks people are doing with a grain of salt. Performance will increase as the drivers get better.

 

 

 

That's kinda like saying you can't trust any benchmarks because you don't know how it will change in the future.  The results are accurate for now with current resources, there might be improvements in the future or there might not.  What we do know is that the current results are accurate and can be trusted. 

[Pizzatime6]

We need to take the performance benchmarks people are doing with a grain of salt. Performance will increase as the drivers get better.

 

Even with improved drivers, the R9 Fury X will never be a 980 TI, but it is competitive. The two short comings this card has to the 980 TI are overclocking and VRAM. Overclocked 980 TI's will beat this thing every time, but there are quite a few gamers that don't overclock so to those people overclocking is moot. With today's games, most don't go over 3.5 GB VRAM, so their is still room for mods on the Fury just as long as you don't go too crazy. Of course if you go really, really crazy with mods, you could probably eat up all of a Titan X's VRAM.

EVGA sells superclocked gpu's and the hybrid boosts itself to a nice overclock. Unless you buy the reference model 980ti the FuryX won't keep up. Not sure how many people bother with the reference non superclocked models though. My titans get around 1400 completely stable. I believe Jayztwocents got the hybrid and it boosted itself into the 1300mhz range.

[Dabombinable]

EVGA sells superclocked gpu's and the hybrid boosts itself to a nice overclock. Unless you buy the reference model 980ti the FuryX won't keep up. Not sure how many people bother with the reference non superclocked models though. My titans get around 1400 completely stable. I believe Jayztwocents got the hybrid and it boosted itself into the 1300mhz range.

That's similar for other Maxwell based cards as well. My GTX 970 G1 Gaming on occasion has boosted itself from stock to nearly 1500MHz, that being said I have to set the power to 112% and max out the voltage or it quickly destabilises. Even when I underclock it to ensure that there are no driver crashes, it just boosts right back up negating the underclock.

[Pizzatime6]

That's similar for other Maxwell based cards as well. My GTX 970 G1 Gaming on occasion has boosted itself from stock to nearly 1500MHz, that being said I have to set the power to 112% and max out the voltage or it quickly destabilises. Even when I underclock it to ensure that there are no driver crashes, it just boosts right back up negating the underclock.

Yes I'm well aware. My second rig has a ftw edition 970. I just find it odd that Jayz FuryX only got to 1125mhz stable. Thats really bad overclocking. Other then that Jay say it was noisy but that is subjective. 1500mhz with a 970 isn't hard to achieve a 100mhz to the base clock should do it for a 970 that's already been overclocked from the factory from evga. If I remember correctly the 980 classified was able to get 3 fps lower at times then the FuryX overclocked according to Jayz benchmarks. I would assume overclocking a 980 a little more would give it the same or better performance.

[That Norwegian Guy]

So, how long has he had the replacement Fury X and still no video?

[Lord_Karango17]

Yes I'm well aware. My second rig has a ftw edition 970. I just find it odd that Jayz FuryX only got to 1125mhz stable. Thats really bad overclocking. Other then that Jay say it was noisy but that is subjective. 1500mhz with a 970 isn't hard to achieve a 100mhz to the base clock should do it for a 970 that's already been overclocked from the factory from evga. If I remember correctly the 980 classified was able to get 3 fps lower at times then the FuryX overclocked according to Jayz benchmarks. I would assume overclocking a 980 a little more would give it the same or better performance.

Yeah, I'm not sure what AMD was going for by saying that card was "an overclockers dream", because it uses the same underlying architecture as the 290x if im not mistaken, and that was not an amazing overclocker by any means

[alphaproject]

By looking at the benchmarks of the Fury X am I the only one that thinks it's a Super Hawaii with HMB.

[Atmos]

I'd still wait for proper drivers which should arrive before or on the release of the Fury X, but my only gripe is the 4GBs...   4GB is not enough for 4K Ultra! 

My hope is that with the Fury card Sapphire or another board member will release an 8GB or even a 6GB card, I'd prefer 8 as it has headroom. 

 

 

 

Linus is officially a GPU killer, call the police! We have a madman on the loose!

 

Gotta remember, 4gb of hbm memory is nothing like 4gb of regular gddr5. The fury X at stock is out performing the titan x at 4k in quite a few games, and even beating the 980ti with it's 6gb in about half of em as well. 

 

If it can do that on 4gbs of memory, then shit, think of what'll come when they get 8gb models rolling out and the vram no longer becomes a bottleneck.