[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X

[ELP3]

Hello everyone.

I have been disconnected for a LONG time.

But I have been bitten by the bug again, and I wanted to get my teeth into these new graphics with the new HBM memory, ahead of its time and which promises to be a real revolution especially for those of us who play at 4K due to its beastly bandwidth.

Will it be what they promise? in a while if nothing fails I will know firsthand.

Before the reviews, I prefer to try it myself... in a few hours...

See you soon...

Regards.

[ELP3]

This post is being processed/translated. The original version will be shown:

Bueno ya llegó..

Es chica chica..

Una cosa es verla en fotos y otra tenerla.

Aquí la comparo con la GTX 980 de referencia y unas TITANES X con bloques.

Es casi igual de grande que el radiador.

Chica,pero tragona…2X8 Pines..

Estoy asombrado con sus temps.Sinceramente.

Yo monto en benchtable,que favorece esto,pero es que tengo las MISMAS TEMPS que en las TITAN con los bloques…en idlle 28 grados...en full,no pasa de 44..increible para la mierda de bloque que es,aunque es completo(no es una híbrida)y el radiador que trae.Ahora bien,el ventilador que es un Nidec,hace bien su trabajo.

Ahora el rendimiento.

Bueno,yo todo lo voy a probar a 4K.Me parece absurdo comprar estas gráficas para 1080p.

He pasado un firestrike ULTRA a 4K.Territorio en principio,favorable a la Radeon por el tremendo ancho de banda que poseen.Que en este test,sobre todo en la segunda prueba gráfica es fundamental.

Decir que el resultado es bueno,pero para mí no el esperado.La he comparado con mis TITAN y estas tiran algo mas de stock e infinitamente mas con OC.

Las titan las tengo con bios modeadas,entonces para igualar la frecuencia de stock,he de bajar con el afterburner a unos 1185-1190MHZ,que creo acordarme es la que traían.También dependen del ASIC que traigan.Pero yo creo que es mas o menos lo que tienen todas de serie.La diferencia es que no entran en Throoting como harian las de stock si no tocas el power target.

Equipo de pruebas para las 2 gráficas.

5960X@4750MHZ HT ON. DDR4 3000MHZ CL 15, ASUS X99 WS E

Firestrike ULTRA 4K. SOLO PRUEBA GRAFICA.

Fury Stock:

TITAN X simulando stock 1180MHZ (no puedo abrir el GPU-Z porque no mide bien las bios modeadas)

Y ahora hablemos de lo que menos me gusta…el OC
es NULO.

A pesar de las buenísimas temps que tiene,a pesar de que parece no ir forzada.No llega apenas a los 100MHZ de subida.Con esfuerzo,he pasado un test a 1151MHZ.A 1165MHZ mi unidad se queda literalmente colgada.Es cierto que aún no se les puede dar voltaje,y que las memorias ván capadas.Pero sinceramente,no nos engañemos.Esto són dos tonga completos pegados, y la capacidad del silicio de AMD para el OC sabemos que está sobre los 1200MHZ.Mientras que la de Nvidia parece no tener fin...

Fury 1151MHZ OC max.

TITAN X 1560MHZ OC max pero para jugar casi (juego a 1550)

Aquí,no hay color posible..

UNIGINE 4.0 4K TODO AL MAXIMO:

Fury x stock:

Fury X máximo Oc estable 1128MHZ:

Realmente rídicula la cifra de OC máximo conseguido…apenas 78MHZ sobre stock...:(

Con el ancho de banda que tienen.Una buen OC sería totalmente lineal,en fin..

No me parece una buena cifra la verdad los valores de unigine,pues si bien aún no los he pasado con las TITAN X.Hasta una "simple" GTX 980 de referencia,con bios de serie,a 1550MHZ la pone en seriso apuros..

GTX 980 de referencia,OC 1550MHZ:

P.D.coño,ahora que me doy cuenta,esa prueba de la GTX 980 se ha pasado con el PCIe a 4X…bueno,pues ponerle algunas décimas de frame mas..

Pues sinceramente,después de ver el resultado anterior,me he animado y he pasado un firestrike con la GTX 980 de referencia,que como digo,lleva bios de fábrica y hace throoting.

Y oceada a 1550MHZ se le echa encima de mala manera..y sobre plataforma Z87.

Sinceramente,viendo desgraciadamente el nulo OC de la Fury,por lo menos hasta que se desbloqueen cosas,no sé con cual comparar….

Otra cosa que también quería comentar,y me lleva ocurriendo desde hace bastante que pruebo AMD "gordas" es que Ocs que tengo en el micro,que son absolutamente estables,con 3 y hasta 4 gráficas de Nvidia,se ván a la mierda de golpe con una sola GPU de AMD.

No lo entiendo.Pide mucho mas Vcore.Sé que són mas cpu dependientes,pero no sé hasta que grado tiene que ver.

Posiblemente,chupen mucho mas de los PCIe,y vuelven la placa inestable.Porque otra cosa no la entiendo.

Una CPU que es capaz con 3 TITAN X de pasar media hora o mas de real bench.Es incapaz de pasar tan siquiera un Cinebench R15 con la Fury.....:(

Qué cosas....

P.D.CREO QUE DESGRACIADAMENTE ESTA NOCHE ACABA YA.

El sistema está limpio,y no tengo juegos.Por el motivo X que sea,steam está caído.Y a pesar de tener 200MB no puedo descargar nada...y no tengo nada mas que probar.Lo siento.

Si por casualidad volviera,me gustaría probar el nuevo batman.

ACTUALIZO

YA vá steam

hay disponibles uno snuevos drivers exproceso para este juego y los he puesto ya que vienen listados para las Fury.

No he probado este juego aún en nvidia.Pero tiene pinta de estar FATAL optimizado.

He puesto todo al máximo menos las opciones de Nvidia que están sombreadas.El juego,según el afterburner merodea muy peligrosamente las 4GB.He notado muchos tirones,no sé si por optimización del juego (probablemente) o por falta de Vram puntual.

Ahora con Nvidia.

Visto lo visto he decidio comparar con la GTX 980 al máximo de OC estable.Recordar,es de referencia,sin mod bios etc.

Algo mejor vá,se nota que es pro-nvidia el juego.Ahora bien,tirones ninguno.Por lo tanto ni es Vram,ni tampoco el juego por si solo aunque brilla por su asuencia la optimización…otro mas..:(

Las opciones gráficas són las mismas que en la radeon.No hay phsyx.Ya que lo faltaba...ponérselo..:)

Para que no se me tache de pro-nvidia.Aunque no puedo negar que me gustan mas,simplemente porque rinden mejor,aunque también mas caras.

He pasado un bench Pro-AMD.El Hitman.

Lo he hecho al máximo,4K,8 capas de MSAA y ultra…quería ver los mínimos y el impacto en la Vram.Tranquilos que lo he hecho también en la GTX 980.

Fury X:

Esos mínimos delatan falta de Vram.Cosa lógica por otra parte porque no hay ninguna necesidad de meter tanto AA a esa resolución.

Pero lo mas curioso viene ahora con la GTX 980 de referencia con OC.

A pesar de ser a todas luces excesivo para su potencia y ser un bench Pro AMD.Y sobre todo tener la misma cantidad de Vram.Aún sacando algo menos,mantiene mejor el tipo en los "mínimos"…curioso cuando menos..

Aunque para hacer en honor a la verdad,yo en ninguna de las dos he notado el típico tirón de falta de Vram.Falta de potencia si,pero esos mínimos no sé de donde se los saca el bench.

Para terminar,un bench a una resolución mucho mas mundana,1080p de unigine al máximo.Algo que puede comparar la mayoría con sus propias gráficas.Está pasado al máximo OC estable.(no sé a ciencia cierta si al pasarlo en un monitor nativo 4K,se puede ver alterados (negativamente) los resultados comprándolos con un nativo 1080p.

Como me temía,2 cosas…las bajas resoluciones no són lo suyo..y parece que siguen sin teselar al nivel de las Nvidia.

Y bueno,después de hacer estas barrabasadas sin mucho sentido(algunas como las del Hitman).No hay potencia al menos que se junten muchas gráficas para jugar así (un hándicap aquí de las Fury con su radiador) decir que la gráfica sinceramente me encanta.

Es pequeñita,silenciosa,fresca..

Pero...no rinde lo esperado ni ocea un carajo.Además,como casi siempre los drivers están muy verdes y en juegos no se nota fluidez.Vá como a trompicones.Los típicos drivers "pro benchmark para lanzamiento en las reviews" que dejan de lado la jugabilidad.

Supongo que con el tiempo,la cosa se pondrá en su sitio.Pero siendo realista.No tienen nada que hacer ahora mismo contra los GM200 y su terrorífico OC.Se están viendo hasta GTX 980 TI de referencia,alcanzar los 1600MHZ...es la evolución del silicio de una nueva arquitectura de verdad,como es Maxwell.A diferencia de un "experimento" que nos ha querido vender AMD(quizás porque no hay para mas con poco dinero para I+D),con un núcleo de "antigua" hornada como són 2 tonga completos unidos,y una memoria HBM aún con mucho que depurar.Y que ya simplemente con ver,como su tercera espada,como es la 390X,tiene el doble de GB de Vram que la Fury,nos dás que pensar..

Que conste que esta es mi humilde opinión,y como casi siempre estaré equivocado.

Una pena..como digo me parece un juguete muy coqueto...;)

Un último apunte.Las capturas de la GTX 980 las he tomado en ventana,para demostrar que no había trampa ni cartón y era una GTX 980.No una TI ni nada de eso...de ahí las variaciones al tomar las capturas.Pero los benchs están pasados normalmente,es decir,a pantalla completa.

Un saludo y buenas noches.

[whoololon]

Well, with me biting my nails, you have me waiting for a benchmark and temperatures.
;D

[fjavi]

@ELP3:

Hello everyone.

I have been disconnected for a LONG time.

But I have been bitten by the bug again, and I wanted to get my teeth into these new graphics with the new HBM memory, ahead of its time and promising to be a real revolution especially for those of us who play at 4K due to its beastly bandwidth.

Will it be what they promise? in a while if nothing fails I will know firsthand.

Before the reviews, I prefer to try it myself…in a few hours..

See you soon...

Regards.

It seems to be tight, although the temperature seems very good, it is noticeable that the dissipation is effective

It would be good to play some games, the benchmarks are not very useful, so we can see if there is any problem with the 4Gb, although I suppose that with one it should not be noticed too much, but with two or more I think that will be the weak point.

To put in 2 or more it would be better to wait for one of 8Gb.

regards

[ELP3]

@fjavi:

It seems to be tight, although the temperature seems very good, it is noticeable that the dissipation is effective

It would be good to run some games, as benchmarks are not very useful, so we can see if there is any problem with the 4Gb, although I suppose that with one it should not be noticed too much, but with two or more I think that will be a weak point.

To put 2 or more it would be better to wait for one of 8Gb.

regards

4Gb right now in multigpu for 4K. I tell you from now, that they are not worth it. The change from the 4GB of the 980, to the 12 of the TITAN, is noticeable and a lot..and not just for power. Unfortunately, there are games today that are poorly programmed or console ports, that eat up 4,5 and even 6GB at 4K without applying large amounts of AA. Among other things, because at that resolution, it is not necessary.

[fjavi]

@ELP3:

4Gb right now in multigpu for 4K. I tell you right now, they are not worth it. The change from the 4GB of the 980 to the 12 of the TITAN is noticeable and a lot... and not just for power. Unfortunately, there are games today that are poorly programmed or console ports, that eat up 4,5 and even 6GB at 4K without applying large amounts of AA. Among other things, because at that resolution, it is not necessary.

Well, yes, because at 1080p there are already games that eat up 3Gb, anyway I also see the limitation of the radiators, because if you put in two or three without turning on RL, it's going to be very cumbersome to place those radiators in a case.

Let's see if they come out with the 8Gb ones and a dissipation that doesn't need radiators because otherwise I don't see the competition against Nvidia well, Nvidia doesn't seem to be able to lower itself from the horse with the prices because it's easy that they continue to sell more 980Ti, even if they are more expensive.
They also don't seem to think about lowering the 980 and 970 much.

I hadn't seen the thing about the 980, but it's clear that this Unigine thing about tessellation still doesn't go well for AMD.

regards

[wwwendigo]

@ELP3:

4Gb right now in multigpu for 4K. I tell you right now, they are not worth it. The change from the 4GB of the 980 to the 12 of the TITAN is noticeable and a lot..and not just for power. Unfortunately, there are games today that are poorly programmed or console ports, that eat up 4,5 and even 6GB at 4K without applying large amounts of AA. Among other things, because at that resolution, it is not necessary.

A question and at the same time a suggestion ELP3:

Why don't you run tests also at 1440p? These graphics may not be bought to play at 1080p, but 4K is even a bit "excessive" for these graphics alone, being possibly their sweet spot for monogpu the use of 1440p with everything turned up.

Regards.

[ELP3]

@wwwendigo:

A question and at the same time suggestion ELP3:

Why don't you run tests at 1440p as well? These graphics may not be bought to play at 1080p, but 4K is even a bit "excessive" for these graphics alone, possibly being their sweet spot for a single GPU the use of 1440p with everything maxed out.

Regards.

Well I'll explain it to you.

Basically because I want to test it at my resolution, and I don't have time for many adventures anymore.

I no longer do "reviews" for the gallery for others..for that there are other forums.

I simply felt encouraged to share my experiences with this new graphics card which I had high hopes for.

And then, because believe it or not, none of my monitors are 2K. Although I run things at that resolution, it always gives something less.No I don't understand why, but it is like this..besides the fact that I am completely sure that this graphics card performs better at 4K than at 2K.

A hug..;)

[wwwendigo]

@ELP3:

Well, I'm going to explain it to you.

Basically because I want to test it at my resolution, and I don't have time for many adventures anymore.

I no longer do "reviews" for the gallery for others..for that there are other forums.

Simply, I was encouraged to share my experiences with this new graphics card, which I had put a lot of hope into.

And then, because, believe it or not, none of my monitors are 2K. Even if I upscale things to that resolution, it always gives menos.No I understand why, but it is like that..besides the fact that I am completely sure that this graphics card performs better at 4K than at 2K.

Hugs..;)

Hello:

Thanks for the explanation, you know that all was just a suggestion for those of us who don't play at such high resolutions, and as pure contrast and curiosity. Obviously it's something that takes up your time and you decide what to show, especially since you're no longer in the circle of reviews for others, for obvious reasons that we already know (little gratitude for the effort on so many past occasions) and of course, that time is gold.

Anyway, showing results in 4K is appreciated, on the one hand it's an advantage for this graphics card given its beastly bandwidth, but it's also in the predicament that those 4 GB could be limiting on some occasions, although personally I believe that there are few cases.

A hug also, and keep it up, you're great. All your efforts are appreciated.

[Jotole]

As always.... A pleasure to read you firsthand.............. and in Primicia...........!!!

[fjavi]

For me, the important thing is not the tests but the gameplay, playing games and comparing, many of these tests will pass and when W10 comes out we will see other Dx12.

That's why in the end it will matter more how it plays and how it goes in Dx12, let's hope there is competition because otherwise the future is bleak.
Lately I've been detached, I don't buy anything at the price they put on us and even less mid-range as high-end ranges, I also don't pay what they're asking for this one or for the 980Ti, if things continue like this next time they ask for €1000 for a GTX.

Besides, the games that come out badly optimized and with bugs, that's why I left, that's why I thought prices would drop with the release of the AMD series, but I see it a bit bleak, maybe one because I can't and the other because he wants to suck and abuse, I have no choice but not to buy from either one.

regards

[Handrox]

@ELP3:

Hello everyone.

I have been disconnected for a LONG time.

But I have been bitten by the bug again, and I wanted to get my teeth into these new graphics with the new HBM memory, ahead of its time and which promises to be a real revolution especially for those of us who play at 4K due to its beastly bandwidth.

Will it be what they promise? in a while if nothing fails I will know firsthand.

Before the reviews, I prefer to try it myself… in a few hours..

See you soon...

Regards.

How's it going ELP3? Thanks for the info… wow what a hit it has taken many... damn.. :wall:

[amlett]

Many thanks for the review Elp3.

Of the fury I think there is nothing to comment. My God…

[Patagonico]

@fjavi:

For me, the important thing is not the tests but the gameplay, playing games and comparing, many of these tests will pass and when W10 comes out, we will see other Dx12.

That's why in the end it will be more interesting how it plays and how it goes in Dx12, let's hope there is competition because otherwise the future is bleak.
greetings

The thing is that for 4K with 1 graphics card you can't do anything so the gameplay will be far from desired, AMD doesn't have W10 drivers yet, which NVIDIA already has certified drivers for

Windows 10 is Game Ready for "Batman: Arkham Knight" | The Official NVIDIA Blog

Perhaps when the official drivers for W10 are out, a CF can measure up by adding its memory, I'm still waiting to see how my SLI 980 works by adding the Titan if I can fit the 3 graphics cards, there will still be people who do their benches and clear my doubts.-

Greetings.-

[Handrox]

That review came out on XS… AMD Fury X Performance Benchmarks | Digital Storm Unlocked

[Handrox]

@fjavi:

It seems to be coming tight, although the temperature does seem very good, it is noticeable that the dissipation is working

It would be good to run some games, the benchmarks are not very useful, so we can see if there is any problem with the 4Gb, although I suppose that with one it should not be noticed too much, but with two or more I think that is going to be a weak point.

To put 2 or more it would be better to wait for one of 8Gb.

regards

How's it going Fjavi ;D

Well, it's "only" 4GB... But with a giant bus and with latencies close to zero... damn, something is not working as they expected..

[wwwendigo]

@Handrox:

How's it going Fjavi ;D

Alright, it's 4GB "just" … But with a giant bus and with latencies close to zero... damn, something isn't working as they expected..

The bandwidth (not the bus) can matter somewhat in graphics processing, which is dependent on it, but latencies don't at all. Traditional graphics memory has huge latencies, which largely "don't matter" given that the tasks they perform are different from CPUs, and the data they process are large arrays of data well placed and contiguous in memory with few jumps in it as happens in a CPU (textures, etc.).

Latency is important in the "first access" to a set of data aligned in memory, but if you're reading several MB there afterwards all in the same block, it doesn't matter because it all goes "in one go" without added latency. Latency matters a lot with complex data structures or code with many jumps in memory, but this is something that doesn't happen in graphics due to their nature and the nature of the work they perform.

I think that simply the bandwidth is "excessive", a point of advantage but one that can't be taken advantage of much when with GDDR5 they were already overdoing it in that sense. Something will determine in some tests but in many others it won't. And then the 4 GB will determine more than it seems, for being limited especially to 4K (debatable importance, but it can't be denied).

[Fassou]

@Handrox:

Salio esa review en XS…

AMD Fury X Performance Benchmarks | Digital Storm Unlocked

Esta review que enlazas, no vale nada, no muestra ninguna información sobre el equipo de pruebas, las condiciones o configuraciones de los test, ni nada que demuestre, que no lo hicieran en 5 minutos, sólo teniendo cuidado de poner la barra de la Titan X, un poco más larga que la de la Fury X :facepalm:

En otras web, como por ejemplo WCCFtech, también los enlazan, pero puedes leer los comentarios, aportando sus propios benchmark inventados, para reirse de ellos ;D

Sobre la aportación de ELP3, con este avance de algunos test, personalmente también prefiero más los benchmark basados en motores de juegos, que los test sintéticos, pero quizá la propia novedad de la tarjeta, suponga demasiados problemas por falta de drivers, con muchos juegos <:(

¿ No tienes ningún juego en soporte físico, que requiera de mucha gráfica, para ver algo más de andar por casa?, y ver los chorrocientos frames que saca y poder hacernos una idea, frente a los churros de tarjetas de muchos tenemos :mudo:

Salu2! y Gracias por la aportación :sisi:

[Javisoft]

Man elp3!!! As always you bring us your previews!!! We appreciate the effort, man, a lot. I hope the bug bites you more often XD.

Regarding the card, I was expecting something more, maybe in the near future via drivers, I can get better performance, the tests have left me a bit cold, the hype was high...

If it's not too much trouble and you have the time and desire, some tests of tomb raider or metro would be very good to see how it behaves with real engines.

Greetings and a hug!!!

[ELP3]

Hello everyone.

First things first.

Digital storm is a company dedicated to modding and Ultra OC. They sell computers at outrageous prices, putting in the best parts and assembling them.

Therefore, that "review" must be of a Fury messed around with by them. Although I don't know what they could have messed around with, because there's not much left... but they've definitely done something.

Second thing, yes... I played late last night... and to be honest, I didn't like it at all.

The graphics have stuttering galore. It continues to have problems with drivers in games that have been dragging since forever...

For example.

The last COD, advanced warfare. Which I play without problems at maximum settings at 4K except for supersampling with a GTX 980 at 1550. It was terrible. Crashes without sound at 50 fps constantly when you turn the camera, jerks and then textures in low again. Even if you set them manually to extra, they go to low. I had this problem with the 295X2 and it's happening again with this one. Many people don't know this because they don't have Nvidia and can't know because the textures look so bad. They think it's the game... but no.It's the fault of the amd drivers, which for whatever reason, force textures to low and the game looks "disgusting".

I also tried assassins creed and project cars. Project cars ran okay... with drops to 45 fps but playable.

To be honest, I thought assassins didn't run bad.It could maintain about 30 fps at very high settings and I would even say it ran smoother than the others despite having a lower framerate.

The playable experience is very much in need of improvement.

But as I say, this doesn't catch me off guard. We need drivers.

First to give the graphics card its potential if possible. And then to improve the playable experience. Although for me the second is more important than the first.

Best regards.

P.D. Another thing, a lot of screen freezes. Both while playing and while browsing websites etc.No I know if it's instability with the computer, directly the fault of the card, or both. But as I mentioned, the computer has a rock-solid OC with 3 Titan X on top.