[Hardware Canucks] R9 Fury Tri-X

[ivan134]

It says 12" right there in the video at 3:42

 

Also at Tomshardware the new AMD Drivers are shining on the Fury

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-amd-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-overclocked,4216.html

 

There are even two cases where it beats the 980Ti

 

It's too bad AMD keeps shooting themselves in the foot with inconsistent drivers. Would be great for their drivers to perform this well in ALL games.

[LaboonTheWhale]

As far as I've heard, Asus was always the one to dodge when it came to AMD video cards. I heard they recycled GTX coolers for the 200 series cards, which didn't work out too well. Their coolers have improved for this generation?

That was for the 290(x). This time around the 980ti got the short end of the stick. Fury cooler was on the 980ti

[Valentyn]

As far as I've heard, Asus was always the one to dodge when it came to AMD video cards. I heard they recycled GTX coolers for the 200 series cards, which didn't work out too well. Their coolers have improved for this generation?

 

The DCUIII looks identical to the GTX version

Asus Strix Fury review

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2946532/radeon-r9-fury-review-the-fury-xs-little-brother-is-amds-geforce-gtx-980-slayer.html

 

 

It's too bad AMD keeps shooting themselves in the foot with inconsistent drivers. Would be great for their drivers to perform this well in ALL games.

 

Agreed! They obviously can squeeze out some amazing numbers, they just need to get it out more. Darn shame really.

 

They should have made this the 390x and moved the cards down one in the pecking order, so the current 390X becomes the 380X and 380 becomes 370, etc. Fury Nano could perhaps be R9 385 and the Fury X could just be called the Fury. 

That way the 300 series cards would be clear upgrades on their 200 series counterparts.

[ivan134]

I wish reviewers would not turn on vender specific options in reviews. So many of those GameWorks games have HBAO+ on or HBAO at max. He also has TressFx on in Tomb Raider. These settings are obviously going to skew the results. At least he knew to turn off HairWorks in Witcher 3.

[Valentyn]

I wish reviewers would not turn on vender specific options in reviews. So many of those GameWorks games have HBAO+ on or HBAO at max. He also has TressFx on in Tomb Raider. These settings are obviously going to skew the results. At least he knew to turn off HairWorks in Witcher 3.

Personally I want tests with and without all those features.

 

I for one always run everything maxed whenever possible, so it would be nice to see how it compares with and without.

[ivan134]

Personally I want tests with and without all those features.

 

I for one always run everything maxed whenever possible, so it would be nice to see how it compares with and without.

I would also like reviewers to take the time to include both results. However, if they're only going to put out one, it should be vendor neutral. They only put out one result for those games with the respective vendor features on.

[Curufinwe_wins]

It'd be nice if someone actually bothered to include nonreference 980ti... Since most ship with rather substantial overclocks and boosts over stock.

Either way. This card is an impressive value for sure. (Once stock exists for it)

[Dietrichw]

Seems like AMD did a really good job on this one, fills up the gap nicely between the 980 and the 980ti. Is there a Fury out there that still has DVI though? I'm kinda stuck to DVI with a Korean monitor.

This card ships with a display-port to DVI adapter. It also ships with an HDMI cable

[Humbug]

It's too bad AMD keeps shooting themselves in the foot with inconsistent drivers. Would be great for their drivers to perform this well in ALL games.

as an R9 290 user I would say AMD drivers are good. If you go through the new toms hardware Fury review you will see good consistent frame latency across a variety of demanding games, that's a sign of good end-user experience in real games. You can't expect them to beat Nvidia on fps numbers in every game, because Nvidia makes good hardware too.

[carolkarine]

The DCUIII looks identical to the GTX version

Asus Strix Fury review

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2946532/radeon-r9-fury-review-the-fury-xs-little-brother-is-amds-geforce-gtx-980-slayer.html

Agreed! They obviously can squeeze out some amazing numbers, they just need to get it out more. Darn shame really.

They should have made this the 390x and moved the cards down one in the pecking order, so the current 390X becomes the 380X and 380 becomes 370, etc. Fury Nano could perhaps be R9 385 and the Fury X could just be called the Fury.

That way the 300 series cards would be clear upgrades on their 200 series counterparts.

If they had wanted to make sense, then they would have named the 200 series Ass the HD 9000 series, following the same conventions as the old series. Then the 300 series would be the UHD 1000 series (with UHD representing the transition to UHD resolutions, just like the HD moniker did almost ten years ago)

[ivan134]

 

The DCUIII looks identical to the GTX version

Asus Strix Fury review

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2946532/radeon-r9-fury-review-the-fury-xs-little-brother-is-amds-geforce-gtx-980-slayer.html

 

 

 

Agreed! They obviously can squeeze out some amazing numbers, they just need to get it out more. Darn shame really.

 

They should have made this the 390x and moved the cards down one in the pecking order, so the current 390X becomes the 380X and 380 becomes 370, etc. Fury Nano could perhaps be R9 385 and the Fury X could just be called the Fury. 

That way the 300 series cards would be clear upgrades on their 200 series counterparts.

 

They had a lot of unsold stock due the mining craze and the eventual release of the 900 series. I don't think they had a choice but to refresh them so they don't lose money on all those Hawaii cards. The refreshes also brought good performance gains, so it's not so bad.

[ivan134]

 

-snip

Another thing worth noting is it looks like the 390x will cannibalize Fury sales. The 390x (especially the MSI version) has a higher base clock than the 290x and can actually OC quite a bit. The Fury and Fury X don't seem to overclock well, so it seems like it might be possible to OC a 390x to match Fury OC performance. HBM1 seems to be a bust.

[Alurit]

Please stop calling it "Fury (non-x)". Just call it Fury. >.>

it's just making sure nobody misunderstands, it's like calling xbox the ogxbox, or the titan the titan non x or og titan

[MEC-777]

Fury put on a good show, IMO. Stomps the 980 pretty much across the board and says hello to the 980Ti in a few cases. Was a little surprised at that. This will definitely be AMD's big high-end seller. The Fury X I don't think will sell very well considering not everyone wants an AIO with their GPU and it's not really that much faster for costing $100 more. 

 

Another thing worth noting is it looks like the 390x will cannibalize Fury sales. The 390x (especially the MSI version) has a higher base clock than the 290x and can actually OC quite a bit. The Fury and Fury X don't seem to overclock well, so it seems like it might be possible to OC a 390x to match Fury OC performance. HBM1 seems to be a bust.

 

Let's wait and see how it overclocks once voltage is unlocked and proper support is added to MSI AB. 

 

I don't think the 390x will harm Fury sales at all. There's too much of a performance and price gap for that to happen. However, Fury will definitely take away from Fury X sales because the cost difference is much larger than the performance gap.

[MEC-777]

it's just making sure nobody misunderstands, it's like calling xbox the ogxbox, or the titan the titan non x or og titan

 

If someone assumes "Fury X" when someone else says "Fury", it's their own fault for not reading carefully. People need to say what the mean and read carefully. 

[Misanthrope]

Agreed! I'm just afraid that low stock means retailers will be gouging the price again!

 

In the UK the FuryX launched at £509, but is now sitting at around 600-650 depending on brand sometimes.

 

The Fury looks like THE card to get if you don't want to move up to the 980Ti or Fury X for 1440p

 

Actually because it's a cut down Fiji, it means that they can still use chips meant to be Fury X but that couldn't activate all core units so with that plus the fact that cooling units are up to board partners, not coolermaster and AMD, means that it should be a lot more readily available.

 

Though a lot more than non existent it's still pretty poor though.

[Valentyn]

Actually because it's a cut down Fiji, it means that they can still use chips meant to be Fury X but that couldn't activate all core units so with that plus the fact that cooling units are up to board partners, not coolermaster and AMD, means that it should be a lot more readily available.

 

Though a lot more than non existent it's still pretty poor though.

 

Overclockers.co.uk have posted today they have Zero stock at all. They're not even sure when they might get some.

Not looking like a good start

[Misanthrope]

Overclockers.co.uk have posted today they have Zero stock at all. They're not even sure when they might get some.

Not looking like a good start

 

Most GPU launches are fairly limited and scarce though: I went through this myself when waiting for the 970 to be in stock, 2 months after launch I said "fuck it" and got a 290x instead for the same price at the time but yeah, it's quite frustrating that both vendors like to just tease customers and spoil reviewers instead of the other way around, we should start asking all reviewers to dock points down for low availability at launch, much like we do dock points for poor servers and bugs at launch when it comes to software

[jbslayer]

Seems like AMD did a really good job on this one, fills up the gap nicely between the 980 and the 980ti. Is there a Fury out there that still has DVI though? I'm kinda stuck to DVI with a Korean monitor.

 

The ASUS Fury has DVI on it

[Nineshadow]

Damn that's a loooong card.

[MEC-777]

Most GPU launches are fairly limited and scarce though: I went through this myself when waiting for the 970 to be in stock, 2 months after launch I said "fuck it" and got a 290x instead for the same price at the time but yeah, it's quite frustrating that both vendors like to just tease customers and spoil reviewers instead of the other way around, we should start asking all reviewers to dock points down for low availability at launch, much like we do dock points for poor servers and bugs at launch when it comes to software

 

Dock points for poor availability? You must be one of those people who give products poor review scores on Newegg just because it didn't ship to you quick enough. 

 

Products should be rated/reviewed based on the product itself and nothing else.

[Misanthrope]

Dock points for poor availability? You must be one of those people who give products poor review scores on Newegg just because it didn't ship to you quick enough. 

 

Products should be rated/reviewed based on the product itself and nothing else.

 

Right so I am now going to announce my own GPU called the Misan X, Thrope edition: it retails for 700 USD and it beats the 980ti by a 10% to 15% margin on all test. But availability is TBD so you just have to take my word for it about this wonderful hypothetical product that I might or might not deliver in the foreseeable future when the specs and pricing are actually relevant.

 

10/10 you should give my product!

[MEC-777]

Right so I am now going to announce my own GPU called the Misan X, Thrope edition: it retails for 700 USD and it beats the 980ti by a 10% to 15% margin on all test. But availability is TBD so you just have to take my word for it about this wonderful hypothetical product that I might or might not deliver in the foreseeable future when the specs and pricing are actually relevant.

 

10/10 you should give my product!

 

This is not the same situation of the Fury's, so I don't even know what you're getting at here. 

[Misanthrope]

This is not the same situation of the Fury's, so I don't even know what you're getting at here. 

 

How do you know? I don't see stock anywhere on most major retailers and AMD is no stranger to shortage, remember the 290x launch and subsequent scarcity issues when the card got popular with miners?

 

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt for companies to hold off on releasing a new product until they can actually supply it. And no I don't think this is because of a challenge in manufacturing (though that may very well be a possibility) but because of just pure marketing: this is the same artificial scarcity that console manufactures create to hype up their product and promote stories of people waiting outside stores to get their new playstation or xbox or whatever. It's not because they couldn't hold up an extra month or month and a half until they had sufficient stock waiting to ship, I think it's more than a little bit intentionally hard to find.

[MEC-777]

How do you know? I don't see stock anywhere on most major retailers and AMD is no stranger to shortage, remember the 290x launch and subsequent scarcity issues when the card got popular with miners?

 

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt for companies to hold off on releasing a new product until they can actually supply it. And no I don't think this is because of a challenge in manufacturing (though that may very well be a possibility) but because of just pure marketing: this is the same artificial scarcity that console manufactures create to hype up their product and promote stories of people waiting outside stores to get their new playstation or xbox or whatever. It's not because they couldn't hold up an extra month or month and a half until they had sufficient stock waiting to ship, I think it's more than a little bit intentionally hard to find.

 

In your example, it was as if you were telling the reviewers what to rate your card based on what you told them and nothing else - without giving them the actual product. 

 

Both Fury X and Fury have been given to reviewers to be tested and the reviews are based on the real product. So again, not the same situation.

 

Availability does not effect the card's performance and design. So docking points from a review for the card simply because there's limited stock at the moment has nothing to do with how good the card actually is, based on it's own merits (which is what reviews should be based on). That's the point I was trying to make.  

 

The 970's were hard to get when they launched as well. It's not easy to produce GPUs at high volume (especially now with HBM) and I don't think it would have been wise for them to prolong the release of the Fury line any longer than they did.