R9 Fury, still worth it?

[-rascal-]

3 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

Can't see one :<

Sapphire should've put more power phases on it. They probably could've had 12+4+2 or something if they used the space at the top of the card.

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix721 said:

Oh well

 

The Sapphire NITRO R9-Fury has a Dual BIOS "button."

The black cube with the white "2015" text is the button itself.

 

Observe (The 'S' logo near the rear is the button):

Spoiler

 

[Masada02]

Join us...

 

[TheRandomness]

3 hours ago, Masada02 said:

Join us...

 

What happened to the fourth one? 

[Dabombinable]

8 hours ago, Phoenix721 said:

I refuse to buy an Nvidia card. You might think it's stupid, but I just cannot bring myself to owning a geforce card, knowing Nvidia and their shady business tactics.

AMD is just as bad with the shady business tactics.....

[DXMember]

9 hours ago, Phoenix721 said:

I'd love to go for a fury-x, but the fury is not only cheaper but it also holds a better spot in my heart.

click on the GPU link in my sig <3

[DXMember]

1 hour ago, TheRandomness said:

What happened to the fourth one? 

I think it's not there yet... should come in this week or the next???

look in the 3DMark thread, Team Red is going for #1

[alphaproject]

AMD is worse in my mind simply based on the hype the Fury went thru and did not at all deliver and now the pci-e power draw as well as some guys not even being able to detect the card unless they have Win 10.

 

Gameworks can be shut off... that's software. Just shut it off, done... and enjoy the game.

 

AMD drivers clogged my system and taxed the entire computer far more than Nvidia's and taking everything AMD out was such a task. Everything ran so much better once I got AMD out of my system and I didn't even know about it for a long time because I ran the 6870, then the 7850. Since I've had both, I can clearly say Nvidia has been better to me personally.

 

As far as the Fury goes... what did that fancy HMB memory do for it? It didn't beat the flagship Nvidia cards and they had every chance to do so.

 

If AMD was smart... the Fury would have been designed to beat the 980 but make it cheap and affordable since it had no business hanging with the 980 Ti. Heck the Fury X is still ridiculously expensive on newegg. It cost what the freaking 1080 is, ROTFL.

[Zulkkis]

TressFX was made open source pretty quickly and nVidia could optimize their solution. To be honest, a hardware vendor meddling with middleware brings a lot of issues. Especially if they pay to developers for using it. There are too many incentives to make it perform badly on competitor's cards. The only time a hardware vendor should be making middleware is imho when hardware is able to bring out actually new capabilities that couldn't be done before (hence no software for it) and even then the developers and others alike should be able to optimize for the solution.

 

It also creates incentives to make the "stock" solution automatically sub-par when you can toggle hardware-vendor specific eye-candy up and have a selling point that way.

 

The GTX 970 was indeed a 3.5GB card or effectively so. Yes, there is 4 GB on the card, but the last .5 GB is pretty much your equivalent of 512 MB of DDR2 on some old GT 320. Some people tested it with Blender and it slowed down significantly after 3.5 GB, to the point where you'd rather render with a CPU. The biggest condemning factor for me though is that nVidia only came to light with it after users had found out about it.

 

nVidia doesn't gimp their old cards but neither do they care about them all too much after a new series launches. They were never built to last, whereas AMD has been using the same architecture since HD7000 -days and many current improvements can be utilized further down the line. Just looking at the relative performance of Kepler cards signals this. nVidia's advantage has heavily relied on drivers and optimizations in the dx 11 environment, so once the older series actually drops out, you're going to see performance degradations in newer titles. I'm not saying that nVidia can't make great hardware - they certainly can, but they want to keep the costs as low as possible. It makes sense for nVidia to do business like this; less hardware means less heat; good for OEMs and laptops, while less hardware also brings costs per unit down and they sell the majority of the cards.

 

If nVidia really wanted GTX 1080 to perform even better they could have done that - the card doesn't push the power limitations, but they don't have to. And besides, the stock would be even more anemic than what it already is.

 

The PCI-E thing is probably not a large issue but if it stresses anyone, they should wait. As for the... history of these things, if we had an epidemic of broken PCI-E slots and motherboards, you would've heard of it by now. As for RX 480 itself, it sort of let me down - performance was slightly below expectations, but more importantly, the perf / watt isn't that great compared to competition. GTX 1070 is in a different performance league altogether yet has identical power consumption.

 

Fury does indeed beat the 980, Fury X rivals 980 Ti in some niche situations but even I have stated in numerous occasions that 980 Ti is the better card out of the two. Regardless...

 

I wouldn't pick the Fury unless you can find an used one for a good price or something.

[ivan134]

14 hours ago, Phoenix721 said:

Hello, people of the Linustechtips forum. I have one single question
I wanted to buy an RX 480 but the card performed exactly as I expected it to, aka slightly slower than the 970 and considering that it is bound to cost ~350 EUR in Greece, I was wondering if maybe you think it is worth it for me to pick up an R9 Fury for about ~480 EUR from Germany. I know that the 1070 exists, but I have stated that I refuse to buy an Nvidia card. I would like to wait for Vega, but that will take way too long. I plan to game at 1440p with a freesync monitor.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

It's not slower than a 970. When the benchmarks were 1st released, a few of us said the disparity we're seeing between all the benchmarks is likely due to drivers, and we were right. It turns out some reviewers used 16.6.1 instead of 16.6.2 which AMD provided them. The 480 performs like a 390 and is only slower than a 970 in the same GameWorks games that a 390 is also slower than a 970.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qiffg/rx_480_disparity_in_benchmarks_explained/

[ivan134]

14 hours ago, -rascal- said:

Yes...get the Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro.

BECOME ONE OF US! JOIN ME!

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If I could find that card for $300 today, I would buy it instead of a 480

[ivan134]

14 hours ago, Phoenix721 said:

Well, it if it has a dual bios (I don't recall if it does) I miiight attempt it.

It does have a dual bios.

[Masada02]

7 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

What happened to the fourth one? 

Will be here today. 

 

6 hours ago, DXMember said:

I think it's not there yet... should come in this week or the next???

look in the 3DMark thread, Team Red is going for #1