[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X

[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.

[fjavi]

@Handrox:

How's it going Fjavi ;D

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

Greetings Handrox, long time no see, I'm doing well, just a bit disconnected from this.

As for the giant bus, I don't see much benefit, except for pushing 3 or 4K where the bandwidth can stand out or offload the CPU a bit, but the 4GB will limit it.
Also, I don't think a 390X would be short on bandwidth, because the 970s have much less and the 960 would seem ridiculous in terms of bandwidth.
I think this HBM is a bit green, it must be expensive and has a big limitation for being 1GB, it should already be 2GB per chip.

With one of these and looking for playable configurations, maybe I can go with those 4GB, but seeing the nonsense of games they release in terms of memory consumption and optimization, I certainly think even 6GB of a 980Ti seems like too little, although of course, talking about 4K and 3-card configurations.

For me, who continues at 1080p, and seeing what's happening, I think it will take a long time to change resolutions, because it's a huge expense that ends up with most games having a thousand bugs.

That Digitalstorm guy must have smoked something, the Heaven thing I don't believe it, there's another user who has also passed the Heaven and honestly, I find it strange that they outperform a 980Ti in that, if we see that even the 980 with OC is already getting close to the Ti and even more so the Titan X will stand out in that, and a 980 will never overshadow them.

regards
@Patagonico:

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

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 their memories, I'm still waiting to see how my SLI 980 works by adding the Titan if I can fit the 3 graphics cards, anyway, there will be people who do their benchmarks and clear my doubts.-

Regards.-

Hopefully that adding memory will work because otherwise the graphics memory will surpass the system's, we'll need more.
Lately, I don't want to put more than one card, if you already have to fight with one, for the games they release, two is not appealing to me.

I hope W10 runs well, but things they do like the last Batman, where they outsource the port to a few programmers without resources, they make a cutreport and then it's up to patches and drivers to fix it, well, the truth is that it's best to play when it costs €10 or less, as they may have already fixed most of the bugs.

Regards

[Fassou]

@ELP3:

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 up by them. Although I don't know what they could have messed up, because there's not much left... but they must have done "something".

I have no doubt about their professionalism, but I do have doubts about their impartiality, because looking at their computers, all the configurations I've seen start with an Intel Core + nVIDIA, so I have no reason to believe those bar graphs, without providing any additional information to back them up.

Everyone is free to believe what they want, but let's keep talking about your direct experience with the card, and avoid letting the fanboys of one side or the other fill this up with benchmarks without cross-checking.

Salu2!

[Handrox]

@fjavi:

Un saludo Handrox mucho tiempo, yo estoy bien, un poco desconectado de esto.

Lo del bus gigante yo no le veo mucho beneficio, salvo para meter 3 o 4 y 4K que es donde el ancho de banda puede destacar o descargar un poco al CPU, pero los 4Gb la van a limitar.
Ademas que una 390X no creo que ande corta de ancho de banda, por que las 970 tienen mucho menos y ya la 960 pareceria ridiculo el ancho de banda.
Yo creo que esa HBM esta un poco verde, debe ser cara y tiene gran limitacion por ser de 1Gb, tendria ya que ser de 2Gb cada chip.

Con una de esta y buscando configuraciones jugables quiza pueda ir con esos 4GB, pero viendo el desproposito de juegos que sacan en cuanto a consumo de memoria y optimizacion, yo desde luego hasta los 6GB de una 980Ti se me hacen poco, aunque claro hablando de 4k y configuraciones de 3 tarjetas.

Para mi que sigo a 1080p no y viendo lo que ocurre creo que tardare mucho en cambiar de resolucion, por que supone un gasto muy grande para que al final la mayoria de juegos salgan con mil fallos.

Ese de Digitalstorm se ha fumado algo, lo del heaven yo no me lo creo, hay otro usuario que ha pasado tambien el heaven y la verdad que me parece extraño que superen en eso a una 980Ti, si vemos que hasta la 980 con OC ya se aproxima mucho la Ti y mas aun la Titan X van a destacar en eso y una 980 nunca las va a hacer sombra.

saludos

Ojala sirva eso de sumar la memoria por que sino la memoria grafica va a superar a la del sistema, vamos a necesitar mas.
Yo ultimamente no quiero meter mas de una tarjeta, si ya hay que pelearse con una, para los juegos que sacan, dos es que no me apetece.

espero que W10 tire bien, pero cosas que hacen como lo del ultimo Batman que encargan el port a unos pocos programadores sin medios, que hacen un cutreport y luego toca arreglarlo a parches y driver, pues la verdad lo mejor es jugar cuando cueste 10€ o menos que lo mismo ya arreglaron la mayoria de fallos.

Saludos

Pues, yo tbm he andando desconectado de todo eso jajajaja Que bien veros.. hace mucho que no hablamos jejejejeje

Pues que te digo del Fiji, parece que falta potencia pa utilizar toda esa banda… creo que AMD dio un paso muy largo en mal momento, hubiera esperado en siguiente nodo pa empezar con el HBM, con un chip mas poblado y potente.. ese doble Tonga no fue bastante... saludos..

[Pepillo]

Hello, I'm glad to "see" you, I hadn't read ELP3 in a long time. Disappointment, that's the only thing that comes to mind. I expected more, I really like its compact size, its integrated liquid, the new memory.... but fps are fps, and as I always say, my religion forbids me to lose frames. Now I'm at 2K with a GTX 970 SLI, I hoped that a Fury X would surpass it, but it's clear that it doesn't, not even a 980TI achieves it in brute force. The good side, my wallet, will be resting until Pascal ;D Best regards