Unofficial R9 Fury X reviews master post.

[syoumans54]

I regret not waiting for the 980ti to be released, but I love my titan x. I'd get another if I was going SLI but if I was just purchasing for the first time I'd go 980ti. The titan x is a beast!

 

We can be Titan brothers! I'm going for the Titan over the ti because I plan on gaming in 4k. Also, I've always wanted to own a Titan and now is a perfect time to. 

[MegaDave91]

Nope:

 

The Titan X was on the actual ram module, which are not made to be that hot. The Fury X is on the VRM part, which is made to handle those temps.

Actually they are, but that does not mean the temperatures are acceptable by any stretch; they are capable of enduring the heat, though.

 

You are really starting to strike me as an AMD fanboy.

[Psykomantis00]

We can be Titan brothers! I'm going for the Titan over the ti because I plan on gaming in 4k. Also, I've always wanted to own a Titan and now is a perfect time to. 

Me too. 4k is so glorious. 

[zMeul]

hardware.info claims to have overclocked HBM freq: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/6158/19/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-amds-new-flag-ship-graphics-card-overklocking-results

but they don't detail exactly how they did it  :blink:

 

[VanayadGaming]

hardware.info claims to have overclocked HBM freq: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/6158/19/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review-amds-new-flag-ship-graphics-card-overklocking-results

but they don't detail exactly how they did it  :blink:

 

 

Expect in the next few days some driver updates that will enable more and more OC. Don't act this surprised...(or bios mods)

[patrickjp93]

No, at 4k the fury wins EVERY time

1) no it doesn't.

2) when it wins it's within margin of error.

[patrickjp93]

I'm praying the 1080p and 1440p results are just driver flukes. That makes no sense to be matching the 980TI reference at 4K or slightly beating it only to lose in 1080p and 1440p.

[Khvarrioiren]

I was kinda expecting these levels of performance out of the gate. We didn't get the kick-ass GPU we all waited and hoped for, but the Fury X is impressive nonetheless considering the perf/watt improvements. Time will tell if the future drivers help out the performance more. Those VRM temps though, 2spooky4me. Sucks that we have to wait for the Fury reviews a tad longer.

[Pizzatime6]

I was kinda expecting these levels of performance out of the gate. We didn't get the kick-ass GPU we all waited and hoped for, but the Fury X is impressive nonetheless considering the perf/watt improvements. Time will tell if the future drivers help out the performance more. Those VRM temps though, 2spooky4me. Sucks that we have to wait for the Fury reviews a tad longer.

Not really that impressive when the competitor's cards use less watts and performs better. No clue why it has to pull more then 275w at full load.

[Pizzatime6]

We can be Titan brothers! I'm going for the Titan over the ti because I plan on gaming in 4k. Also, I've always wanted to own a Titan and now is a perfect time to. 

Welcome to the brother hood then.

[Homicidium]

Not really that impressive when the competitor's cards use less watts and performs better. No clue why it has to pull more then 275w at full load.

 

Yes, it's such a tragedy that the Fury X pulls 8W more under full load than the Titan X and 15W more than the 980ti.  :rolleyes:

[Psykomantis00]

When does the dual gpu card come out? 

[Pizzatime6]

Yes, it's such a tragedy that the Fury X pulls 8W more under full load than the Titan X and 15W more than the 980ti.  :rolleyes:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-7.html

 

According to this max load of in the 400's. yeah not impressive at all.

 

"Stress Test Power Consumption

If AMD hadn't imposed a strict limit, power consumption might have veered out of control under full load. And sure enough, the Radeon R9 Fury X can get warm and cozy just under 348W"

Yeah it defiantly beats maxwell at power draw to performance. Its just amazing! /s

Unless I'm reading thes power draw graphs wrong, On average its pulling 300+ watts.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Power Consumption.html

[Homicidium]

@Pizzatime6:

 

 

While it is on the high side, I'm not even going to argue with you on that, it's still lower than the 290X and 390X. But I'd suggest you take off your nVidia goggles and see that the power consumption isn't as much of a deal vs. nVidia as you try to make it out to be. 

[Pizzatime6]

@Pizzatime6:

 

 

While it is on the high side, I'm not even going to argue with you on that, it's still lower than the 290X and 390X. But I'd suggest you take off your nVidia goggles and see that the power consumption isn't as much of a deal vs. nVidia as you try to make it out to be. 

Ok do you have a source for this benchmark? Or are we just posting random graphs now that can't be proved if its credible or not.

[Homicidium]

Ok do you have a source for this benchmark? Or are we just posting random graphs now that can't be proved if its credible or not.

 

Just for you, my love :*

 

[Pizzatime6]

@Pizzatime6:

 

 

While it is on the high side, I'm not even going to argue with you on that, it's still lower than the 290X and 390X. But I'd suggest you take off your nVidia goggles and see that the power consumption isn't as much of a deal vs. nVidia as you try to make it out to be. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091-5.html

 

"While Nvidia reports the GeForce Titan X’s TDP at 250W, it never actually reaches this figure under normal circumstances. In fact, not one of the usual stress test applications pushes the card past 247W. "

Toms hardware doesn't seem to agree with you buddy. Last I checked Tomshardware doesnt lie...as for NCIX I don't trust any review made by a company that wants to sell me a product. Thats why all my information comes from sites that don't sell you products they review. 

[Homicidium]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-gm200-maxwell,4091-5.html

 

"While Nvidia reports the GeForce Titan X’s TDP at 250W, it never actually reaches this figure under normal circumstances. In fact, not one of the usual stress test applications pushes the card past 247W. "

Toms hardware doesn't seem to agree with you buddy.

 

Yep, why did I even bother trying to prove you wrong or convince you otherwise?  :rolleyes:

 

 

If we really now started to go about sourcing every graph of power consumption, we'd be at it for ages.

 

Guru3D sees the Titan X at 254W. harwareluxx @ 384W (whole system) 

[Khvarrioiren]

Not really that impressive when the competitor's cards use less watts and performs better. No clue why it has to pull more then 275w at full load.

 

I'm talking about the improvement over the 290x.

[Pizzatime6]

Yep, why did I even bother trying to prove you wrong or convince you otherwise?  :rolleyes:

 

Really your going to go there? ppfff good to know your too immature to look at facts from a reviewer who isn't selling you the product. I can see where this is going bye who ever you are. I'm not going to argue with someone who replies with meme's because they cant find reviews specifically on power usage. Y

[Khvarrioiren]

Also, why the inconsistency between the reviews between different reviewers? I noticed that some used the older drivers, but the discrepancy is kinda baffling.

[Pizzatime6]

I'm talking about the improvement over the 290x.

Compared to the r9 290X yes Tomshardware shows the tdp was lowered by 15watts max load.

[alphaproject]

I guess the point is that the Fury X is still drawing more power and yet it's not blowing away the 980Ti or Titan X.

 

If you are going to draw more power, then you better be beating the competition by at least 10 fps in every test and since it has actually lost a few benchmarks, it does say a lot.

 

I'm not even remotely interested in the watercooled version honestly...looks like a hassle. I like to plug in and go.

 

So if the nice and cool GPU of the Fury X loses some benchies... then the Fury will certainly lose almost every test against the 980Ti. The difference here is that the card is cheaper and is more geared towards the 980. I bet it runs using less power as well with less Stream Processors.

 

 

People still want this card though...it's out of stock everywhere. I mean... it's close to Titan X performance for $649 or $679 depending on where you buy it. It's the team red top card for now.... it is what it is.

[Pizzatime6]

Also, why the inconsistency between the reviews between different reviewers? I noticed that some used the older drivers, but the discrepancy is kinda baffling.

I trust a site that has no bias on the results. Tomshardware doesn't sell gpu's therefore their results are more credible then someone who sells that product.

[Pizzatime6]

I guess the point is that the Fury X is still drawing more power and yet it's not blowing away the 980Ti or Titan X.

 

If you are going to draw more power, then you better be beating the competition by at least 10 fps in every test and since it has actually lost a few benchmarks, it does say a lot.

 

I'm not even remotely interested in the watercooled version honestly...looks like a hassle. I like to plug in and go.

 

So if the nice and cool GPU of the Fury X loses some benchies... then the Fury will certainly lose almost every test against the 980Ti. The difference here is that the card is cheaper and is more geared towards the 980. I bet it runs using less power as well with less Stream Processors.

 

 

People still want this card though...it's out of stock everywhere. I mean... it's close to Titan X performance for $649 or $679 depending on where you buy it. It's the team red top card for now.... it is what it is.

I couldn't tell you why, maybe its because of the amount of stream processors would be my guess.