Jayz2cents' video on the Fury X

[ivan134]

Maybe I should.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_review,9.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/16

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/23/amd_radeon_r9_290x_video_card_review/15#.VY3Z1xNViko

There could be a myriad of reasons why the 290x is cooler in the benchmark I linked, including it being a non reference cooler. The 980 ti temps in your links match up with mine though, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The main point was whether a stock Fury X is priced appropriately when compared to a stock 980 ti, and it is.

[Slinkey]

My main issue is that I don't believe the temps and benchmarks done by him

[Misanthrope]

I havent watched it yet but i heard drivers are not good enough yet so im gonna hold my breath until AMD optimizes the shit out of the card.

 

Being conservative here it's ok certainly, here's why:

 

1) The Fury nonx might end up being a hell of a lot better deal for 100 less and can end up eventually overclocking or performing nearly as good as the X version. See the 290 vs 290x for more on that: the 290 ended up being the better choice for a long time until prices dramatically dropped

 

2) The drivers will probably mature by waiting for 1) anyway

 

3) We still have next to no details on the Fury Nano which might end up being more than just tiny: if priced right it could end up being the sweet spot: think 970 vs 980, everybody agreed the 970 was just a better choice for the money since the performance was just a couple of game settings away anyway.

[Casperian]

There could be a myriad of reasons why the 290x is cooler in the benchmark I linked, including it being a non reference cooler. The 980 ti temps in your links match up with mine though, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The main point was whether a stock Fury X is priced appropriately when compared to a stock 980 ti, and it is.

But that graph is still misleading. R9 290x's die is cooler than 980 Ti's, that is all it says. Without stating the cooler involved that data is void.

[Nineshadow]

Linus literally dropped the card out of his car. These things happen, who knows what had gone wrong. Maybe one of the HBM modules had lost contact to the interposer or something. That is what happens, when you launch revolutionary technology.

He didn't. It was just a tease and a joke.

[ivan134]

But that graph is still misleading. R9 290x's die is cooler than 980 Ti's, that is all it says. Without stating the cooler involved that data is void.

Uhh no, it isn't.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Who?

 

No really.

 

I have HWC, LTT, PcPer, Guru3D, OC3D, SweClockers, KitGuru, (no Fury though lol) Digital Storm, Tom's and a few others, but;

 

who is this clown?

 

He sounds like the Total Biscuit of tech, and that's about the lowest mark I can possibly grade anyone's channel

[SuperShires]

I actually am a moron, and I do recall Jay stating that the sample he got from visiontek was for retail.  How is the coil whine coming from the pump?  pump noise was one thing, and coil whine is another.

 

I don't particularly like Jay's testing methodology but it is more good relevant data to consider, and find character assassinations of him in this thread far fetched and in poor taste.

 

HardwareCanucks explains it very well in this video. Jay is a great reviewer and I trust him with most things but this card isnt even out yet with no drivers apart from beta drivers.

https://youtu.be/rfCb6oiJ6EI?t=8m4s

[Sauron]

Precisely. You just gotta love the double standard here

 

290x? Oh let's warm up houses with that molten lava card omglolz

980ti? Oh it beats the Fury AMD can't compete omglolz

 

Yeah keep blindingly supporting Nvidia, go ahead and look forward to a future of nothing but botched fucking gameworks releases.

 

I think you misunderstood me here; for the record I run an r9 290, and don't give a hot damn how hot the card is as long as it can take it and performs like it costs. But for precisely that reason I need to apply the same standard to nvidia. If the card has a strong perk, I have to give credit where credit is due. I stated I think the Fury X is an engineering feat, and it IS. 52c for a card like this is mighty impressive. Unfortunately however, if that doesn't translate in higher overclocking capabilities (because it doesn't seem to translate to lower noise, as much as I personally don't care) it's a cool, but nerfed jewel. As others said it's totally possible future drivers will take care of that, but nvidia did not make that mistake with the 980ti even if they appear to have semi-rushed it out. I consider the current facts, and these are them. I am a fan of AMD, but at this point I must accept the card is not CURRENTLY as good of an offering as the 980ti. Time will tell.

[Casperian]

Uhh no, it isn't.

Not labeling and describing what is involved correctly is misleading.

I can compare a 980 Ti in a custom loop vs Fury X and say "They are the same load temperature" and unless I disclaim that the 980 Ti was under water, my data is misleading and should not be trusted.

[Notional]

He didn't. It was just a tease and a joke.

 

Don't care if it was a joke or not. The card fell out of the car and landed on the ground. Of course it should not go defective from that, but we don't know what was wrong with it.

[Misanthrope]

I think you misunderstood me here; for the record I run an r9 290, and don't give a hot damn how hot the card is as long as it can take it and performs like it costs. But for precisely that reason I need to apply the same standard to nvidia. If the card has a strong perk, I have to give credit where credit is due. I stated I think the Fury X is an engineering feat, and it IS. 52c for a card like this is mighty impressive. Unfortunately however, if that doesn't translate in higher overclocking capabilities (because it doesn't seem to translate to lower noise, as much as I personally don't care) it's a cool, but nerfed jewel. As others said it's totally possible future drivers will take care of that, but nvidia did not make that mistake with the 980ti even if they appear to have semi-rushed it out. I consider the current facts, and these are them. I am a fan of AMD, but at this point I must accept the card is not CURRENTLY as good of an offering as the 980ti. Time will tell.

 

As someone who has lost multiple cards to heat problems I must disagree. I'm glad it hasn't happened to you as often, but thermals are very important. For that reason alone I think the Fury x is at least as good of a deal and for most people not getting into custom water cooling loops, better in the long run.

[bomerr]

It's sad to see the AMD fanboys in denial. 

 

I OC all my cards and so I really liked seeing his OC video comparison. Stock numbers mean nothing to me. 

 

I think you guys complaining about drivers or voltage are in total denial. Fury is based on the same GCN architecture as the 290X so the drivers will already support it well as it's NOT a new architecture. As for voltage, how many 290Xs do you see hitting 1400 or 1500 Mhz? 1150, maybe 1200, is about right for the max a Fury will ever hit. So it'll never get the same performance as 980 Ti.

 

Perhaps a better question you guys should ask is why didn't AMD release a Titan X killer? Answer because their architecture isn't good enough. 

[Sauron]

Even worse, how many of those 980ti's and Titan X's he showed, had custom water cooling? Then we are talking solutions that are 100-500$ NVidia cards + the other parts of the custom loop. You need to include that cost as well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm ALMOST sure he only uses cards the way he got them for this sort of benchmarking, even with the overclocks, unless otherwise specified. He has a separate testbench for new gpus, he doesn't put them in a custom loop.

[Casperian]

I could be wrong, but I'm ALMOST sure he only uses cards the way he got them for this sort of benchmarking, even with the overclocks, unless otherwise specified. He has a separate testbench for new gpus, he doesn't put them in a custom loop.

AFAIK this is correct. The 980 Ti's were labeled by manufacturer and model (thus cooler also) and IIRC the reference 980 Ti OC beat the Fury X OC.

[Misanthrope]

It's sad to see the AMD fanboys in denial. 

 

I OC all my cards and so I really liked seeing his OC video comparison. Stock numbers mean nothing to me. 

 

I think you guys complaining about drivers or voltage are in total denial. Fury is based on the same GCN architecture as the 290X so the drivers will already support it well as it's NOT a new architecture. As for voltage, how many 290Xs do you see hitting 1400 or 1500 Mhz? 1150, maybe 1200, is about right for the max a Fury will ever hit. So it'll never get the same performance as 980 Ti.

 

Perhaps a better question you guys should ask is why didn't AMD release a Titan X killer? Answer because their architecture isn't good enough. 

 

Nobody on a reference 980ti will ever get to 1400 or 1500 either. So yeah, for the 0.001% of extreme overclockers with massive custom water loops like Jay yeah, Nvidia it's still the way to go I'd agree to that.

[Notional]

I could be wrong, but I'm ALMOST sure he only uses cards the way he got them for this sort of benchmarking, even with the overclocks, unless otherwise specified. He has a separate testbench for new gpus, he doesn't put them in a custom loop.

 

I would expect so, but the Fury X is still a reference card with a reference cooler. NVidia can just use an AIO too.

[Sauron]

As someone who has lost multiple cards to heat problems I must disagree. I'm glad it hasn't happened to you as often, but thermals are very important. For that reason alone I think the Fury x is at least as good of a deal and for most people not getting into custom water cooling loops, better in the long run.

 

I agree that thermals are important, but if the card is designed to run at a certain temperature I'd expect it to last me at least my usual 3 year cycle before noping out. That said my card has a very aggressive fan profile, because I prefer it running a bit cooler than less loudly. Especially with all the stuff that's been going around about DCUII r9 cards and their vrms.

[mr moose]

It's sad to see the AMD fanboys in denial. 

 

I OC all my cards and so I really liked seeing his OC video comparison. Stock numbers mean nothing to me. 

 

I think you guys complaining about drivers or voltage are in total denial. Fury is based on the same GCN architecture as the 290X so the drivers will already support it well as it's NOT a new architecture. As for voltage, how many 290Xs do you see hitting 1400 or 1500 Mhz? 1150, maybe 1200, is about right for the max a Fury will ever hit. So it'll never get the same performance as 980 Ti.

 

Perhaps a better question you guys should ask is why didn't AMD release a Titan X killer? Answer because their architecture isn't good enough. 

 

It's sad isn't it, AMD cards don't perform well in a game it must be nvidia's fault. When they don't perform well on non-GW titles it must be the dev's fault, when they don't perform well in benchmarks it must be the reviewers fault. Kinda just getting tired of hearing the constant blame blame blame. Some people just need to accept it, this is the best they can do for now. Yes it's disappointing, we all wanted better, but reality is reality.

[Sauron]

I would expect so, but the Fury X is still a reference card with a reference cooler. NVidia can just use an AIO too.

 

Not as simple. Part of what makes the Fury X an awesome piece of tech is how compact it is and how the vrms are so close to the gpu itself a single 10cm heatpipe is enough to keep them nice and cool. A 980ti would need pretty much a full waterblock to get adequate cooling, and those are expensive (as shown by some models already on the market, there's a reason the EVGA one is hybrid as opposed to full water).

[ivan134]

Not labeling and describing what is involved correctly is misleading.

I can compare a 980 Ti in a custom loop vs Fury X and say "They are the same load temperature" and unless I disclaim that the 980 Ti was under water, my data is misleading and should not be trusted.

And it seems you still don't even know what this conversation is about. Carry on though.

[bomerr]

Nobody on a reference 980ti will ever get to 1400 or 1500 either. So yeah, for the 0.001% of extreme overclockers with massive custom water loops like Jay yeah, Nvidia it's still the way to go I'd agree to that.

 

Well you could get 1400 or 1500 on a reference 980 Ti however it probably run at like 90C and probably throttle.  Hence why I would never recommend a reference 980 Ti. With aftermarket coolers like even an ACX it shouldn't be an issue tho. 

 

Also the Fury X is water-cooled from the get-go so that should tell you something about it's heat output on air. 

[Casperian]

Nobody on a reference 980ti will ever get to 1400 or 1500 either. So yeah, for the 0.001% of extreme overclockers with massive custom water loops like Jay yeah, Nvidia it's still the way to go I'd agree to that.

5:41 -> 980 Ti Reference at 1402MHz

5:57 in Jayz video -> Reference 980 Ti OC beating the Fury X in Metro Last Light.

[Misanthrope]

5:41 -> 980 Ti Reference at 1402MHz

5:57 in Jayz video -> Reference 980 Ti OC beating the Fury X in Metro Last Light.

 

I don't believe jay.

[Casperian]

And it seems you still don't even know what this conversation is about. Carry on though.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't trust a graph with data like that. Also, you might want source that graph.