Fury X Voltage unlock closer!

[VanayadGaming]

Hey all ,

 

It seems that the voltage unlock is drawing closer and closer and that someone managed to overclock a Fury X to 1.215Ghz. I don't trust the source that much, since it is reddit, but you never know. I am really excited about this and see some real comparisons vs the 980Ti

 

 

Here are the validated results... 

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308632

 

 

 

Edit2: Misread some of the results. Deleted.



 

[SPG]

yup, far lower than you should, super low. May be real, no idea, isnt that hard to photoshop

actually, im leaning more towards it being real just due to the fact its on the 3dmark website

[Humbug]

AMD should enable voltage unlock with an official driver. I think it's probably in the pipeline.

AMD will not need massive overclocks since the performance of their GPUs scale very well with clockspeed. But they need to prioritize the voltage unlock in order to compete with 980ti overclocks.

[Techhog]

yup, far lower than you should, super low. May be real, no idea, isnt that hard to photoshop

actually, im leaning more towards it being real just due to the fact its on the 3dmark website

Uh, yeah, I would think that it would be pretty hard to get a fake result on the site...

[VanayadGaming]

Added to OP comparison photo... am I misreading something or why is it so slow compared to a 980Ti ? 

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

[dimitriianghelov]

Added to OP comparison photo... am I misreading something or why is it so slow compared to a 980Ti ? 

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

nice try did you see the cpu overclock 4,4 Ghz vs 5,8 GHZ http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5307465

[Sakkura]

Added to OP comparison photo... am I misreading something or why is it so slow compared to a 980Ti ? 

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

 

1849 MHz may have something to do with that.

[VagabondWraith]

1849 MHz may have something to do with that.

There's 2 980's.

[Sakkura]

There's 2 980's.

 

Yeah scratch that part. But the 980 Ti is still at 1849 MHz. Not exactly your average 980 Ti overclock.

[SurvivorNVL]

About time.  Hopefully it can compete at all resolutions and fields or out-perform once it can be OC'd.

[Techhog]

Added to OP comparison photo... am I misreading something or why is it so slow compared to a 980Ti ? 

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

I can't tell if you're joking, trolling, or a little dumb.

[Khvarrioiren]

These results are legit indeed, but the CPU clock is way lower with the Fury X. Also Dancop's results are LN2 if I recall correctly. The 3rd place sits at ~67000 points with far more believable clockspeeds.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308632

[VanayadGaming]

These results are legit indeed, but the CPU clock is way lower with the Fury X. Also Dancop's results are LN2 if I recall correctly. The 3rd place sits at ~67000 points with far more believable clockspeeds.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308632

Thanks, did not know that

[Techhog]

These results are legit indeed, but the CPU clock is way lower with the Fury X. Also Dancop's results are LN2 if I recall correctly. The 3rd place sits at ~67000 points with far more believable clockspeeds.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308632

Wrong link.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308296

 

I'd still say the the boost clock is probably way more than average for this one, though.

[Khvarrioiren]

Wrong link.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308296

 

I'd still say the the boost clock is probably way more than average for this one, though.

 

I was linking the Fury X to confirm that it's real.

[Sakkura]

By the way, that memory overclock is pretty intense. 500 -> 625 is +25%, that's like taking a GTX 980 or 980 Ti to 2190 MHz (8760 MT/s).

[Techhog]

I was linking the Fury X to confirm that it's real.

That's linked in the OP

[Techhog]

Also, don't AMD cards really fall behind in DX10?

[Sakkura]

Also, don't AMD cards really fall behind in DX10?

 

DX10 is rarely used anyway. DX9 and DX11 (and soon DX12) is what matters.

[Techhog]

DX10 is rarely used anyway. DX9 and DX11 (and soon DX12) is what matters.

Yeah. I don't know why he used Vantage. All of these people do strange things like using Vantage or even 06.

[Doobeedoo]

Nice. I wonder if AMD will do something about it in driver later on.

[DXMember]

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dmv/5308632/3dmv/5166609/3dmv/5307465

 

Really comparable results against the Titan X Black but it really shows how good the 980 Ti is for overclocking. 

980Ti was under LN2

 

3DMark Vantage is run at 1280x1024 resolution... it's a very old benchmark.

I'd like to see 3DMark 11 at 4k

 

anyhow, nVidia is known for their "application specific optimisations", which some, I'm not saying I do, but some might, I'm not saying they do, but sometimes they might call it cheating (:

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_sues_nvidia_for_false_benchmark_results-news-10192.php

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/54318-update-futuremark-now-says-nvidia-didnt-cheat

http://www.geek.com/games/futuremark-confirms-nvidia-is-cheating-in-benchmark-553361/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048824/nvidia-cheats-3dmark-177-drivers

http://www.geek.com/games/nvidia-still-cheating-even-with-latest-3dmark-build-552713/

[Virgule]

Damn potatoes

[The Benjamins]

look how his OC gives it a 10,000 higher score than other Fury X's

 

Search page

 

1100 MHz, 550 MHz http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5305702

 

1215 MHz, 625 MHz http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5308632

 

3rd place 980 Ti 1,272 MHz, 2,007 MHz  http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5300125

 

still not a good test, should be the more demanding benchmarks

 

[carolkarine]

This is good news.