[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X
-
But 4K should be able to run at 60 fps if you lower the options, you shouldn't need the filters that much. I really, if I see it dropping to 30 or 40 fps when I lower things, I'd rather lose quality than smoothness and agility.
I don't believe in Dx12 until I see it, because lately I see a lot of marketing about graphics, processors, and systems, and then in the end it's not fulfilled. Graphics are advancing less and less, CPU is barely noticeable, what I do see is a price increase in everything.
This time, seeing the prices of the 980Ti when it came out, I thought that those who bought the Titan X when it came out have the best justification. It's very expensive, but it has maintained the price of previous Titans while the GTXs have gone up. They have the full chip and 12 GB, which at least justifies the price difference more and, above all, they have them earlier.
The memory thing, we'll see how it works and if it doesn't cause a bunch of problems. Something did improve with W10, but I don't expect 50%, maybe in some things like being able to display more objects, but in most things I don't think it will be noticeable.
Saludos
Surely this is like always, that 50% in the end will be 30%, but it compensates me a lot and if the Titan adds another 20% welcome, as they are continuous ranges and the same type of memory, I see it as possible. Everyone has their own style of play. The 30fps was always my limit and always ultra and without filters in 4K.
Now the problem I see that could happen with the Fury is that having a different type of memory, it might not get along with the other AMD in W10.
It will be interesting to see when W10 comes out if ELP3, with its wide variety of graphics, dares to test how the compatibilities of graphics of the same generation work, mixing graphics of different generations, even Amd-Nvidia, or simply demonstrating that in the end not everything works as it was said.
Saludos.-
-
But 4K should be able to run at 60 fps if you lower the settings, you shouldn't need the filters that much. If I see it drop to 30 or 40 fps when I lower the settings, I'd rather lose quality than smoothness and agility.
I don't believe in DX12 until I see it, because lately I see a lot of marketing about graphics, processors, and systems, and then in the end it's not fulfilled. Graphics are advancing less and less, CPU is barely noticeable, but I do see a price increase in everything.
This time, seeing the prices of the 980Ti when it came out, I thought that those who bought the Titan X at launch had the best justification. It's very expensive, but it has maintained the price of previous Titans while the GTXs have gone up. They have the full chip and 12 GB, which justifies the price difference more, and they have it earlier.
The memory thing, we'll see how it works and if it doesn't cause a bunch of problems. Windows 10 did improve some things, but I don't expect 50%, maybe in some things like being able to display more objects, but in most things I don't think it will be noticeable.
regards
If they have cooling on the phases, they have a RL tube that covers the phases. The thing is that they are digital phases and those get hot, but they do have a metal RL tube for the phases.
Anyway, AMD has done more than I thought, seeing the TDP of the 290x, the performance per watt and also without an architecture change.
I thought they would change a little to GCN 1.2 and lower manufacturing costs a bit, because I don't think it's very profitable for them to compete with 512-bit and 8GB cards against 256-bit and 4GB cards. The 380 competes with 256-bit against the 128 of a 960, which must cost Nvidia a fortune to manufacture. Some 960 PCBs are a disgrace, that's why it's harder for them to put aggressive prices.
But that will affect us all when buying, we'll pay more and see more ridiculous advances.
regards
Well I expected more, note that AMD has really done very little to improve its architecture, almost all the TDP improvement is a consequence of HBM, GCN is still a volcano when it comes to running strong. That same chip couldn't come out as it is, using GDDR5. AMD needs to stop and think about many things, they're running out of powder, time is getting short and I think that was their last wildcard. It's possible we'll see AMD's quotas drop to almost nothing in the coming months. WATCH OUT!
regards
-
Man, I expected more, you should see that AMD has really done very little to improve its architecture, almost all improvement in TDP is a consequence of HBM, GCN is still a volcano when it comes to running strong. That same chip couldn't come out as it is, using GDDR5. AMD needs to stop and think about many things, it's running out of powder, time is getting shorter and I think that was their last wildcard. It's possible we see AMD's quotas drop to almost nothing in the coming months. WATCH OUT!
Regards..
Man, the consumption stays between a maxwell and a Kepler in efficiency, since in that aspect the HBM memory helps, but I doubt it's the only factor in the equation:
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4 GB Review | techPowerUp
It's clear that if instead of consuming 20W it consumes 4 W in the memories, it helps. But when we talk about a consumption of more than 200W, it's more of an "addition" than a primordial effect.
-
Hello txemote, long time no see, we always come back here but I'm increasingly reluctant to buy any hardware, not just because it's expensive but also because the games turn out badly.
If I get the bug for those Maxwells because they seem to be going up well, but in the end I wait because the prices of the graphics cards are getting to unseen prices, that's why lately I think more about spending.
Best regards
Best regards also to Jotole, Alcor, Pepillo and all of you who haven't been seen for a whileA pleasure for me too to read you all again…..It's clear that although we are in other pursuits, the goat pulls the cart...............xD. And we all keep an eye on the releases of components. Little time to participate in the forums, but well we continue to maintain the hobby/perdition for Hardware......:wall:
Regarding the topic that concerns us, in a way I get the impression that AMD wants to but can't. And it's a shame, because in the end the ones who lose out are the users, because Nvidia doesn't have a competitor that seriously challenges it, and that's noticeable in their prices.
For my part, I'm skipping this generation, my trio of Titans moves everything more than enough at the resolution I'm moving in now. So next year we'll see if there's movement in GPUs.
Greetings to all......!!!
-
It is also the first time that it dares to make such a massive and expensive chip, NVIDIA is indeed accustomed to these designs, although it has broken its own records on die size with the GM200 (the first time it exceeds 600 mm2).AMD I think that before Fiji, it had never exceeded 500 mmº2, in fact I would swear that the maximum size reached was more like 450 mm2.
In any case, the performance of the Fury is NOT the problem, that it performs less than the GTX 980 Ti or has more consumption, neither. The problem is the damn price.Does anyone doubt that I would talk differently about this card if it came out at the price of a GTX 980 or for 550-600€? If you don't reach it, offer what the rival doesn't have, and in this case it would be a card superior to the GTX 980 for a little more, even if we counted OCs it would be attractive, anyway.
There are people who pretend to make it seem like the "enormous cost" of the integrated RL or of the HBM means that AMD "can't" lower prices. NONSENSE. That RL isn't worth even $30 to the manufacturer, another thing is that they screw you over by selling it very expensive in stores because it's an "elite" product (read, they take advantage of the customer with very wide commercial margins).HBM memories will also be more expensive, but memories have always been the second most costly element in manufacturing a graphics card. GPUs are the most expensive, and normally they don't even reach $100 in price for the manufacturer of the graphics card on the part of NVIDIA/AMD. And I'm only talking about TOP GPUs.
Memories usually hover around 40-60$. So no, prices can be lowered, and in fact for its survival, AMD MUST lower them. Also in the 300 range. -
Un placer también para mí volver a leeros a todos…..Esta claro que aunque estemos en otros quehaceres, la cabra tira al monte...............xD. Y todos seguimos con el rabillo del ojo las salidas de componentes. Poco tiempo para participar en los foros, pero bueno seguimos manteniendo la afición/perdición por el Hardware......:wall:
Respecto al tema que nos ocupa, en cierto modo me da la impresión de que AMD es un quiero y no puedo. Y es una pena, porque al final los que salimos perdiendo somos los usuarios, porque Nvidia no tiene una competencia que le plante cara seriamente, y eso se nota en sus precios.
Yo por lo pronto esta generación me la salto, mi trio de Titanes mueve todo mas que de sobra a la resolución que me muevo ahora. Así que el año que viene veremos si hay movimiento en gpu´s.
Saludos a todos......!!!
Yo creo que con AMD es la gente misma la que se monta sus castillos de humo, claro luego ese humo se evapora y llegan las decepciones, aunque algunos tambien se lo montan con Nvidia.
En AMD se estan tomando muy malas decisiones, si ya tenian graficas mas caras de fabricar debian haber ido a GCN 1.2 y tratar de abaratar costes, incluso ni preocuparse por hacer Fury lo que debian es sacar una gama de 350€ hacia abajo que al final son las que mas se venden, debian hacer lo que hicieron con la serie 4000 y 5000 sacar tarjetas que no sean muy caras de fabricar y poder poner buenos precios.
Aunque claro esta vez Nvidia no necesita graficas como la 280 de 512bits, Nvidia con kepler y despues con Maxwel le ha salido todo redondo en cuanto a negocio, lo malo que ese negocio se lo pagamos nosotros comprando mas caro y sacando con cuentagotas.
Ahora dicen que Nvidia bajo de precio la 980Ti por la salida de la Fury y es otra mentira, Nvidia es muy duro para bajar precio, lo que ocurre es que ahora se estan estabilizando de precio, Nvidia recomienda 650$ y de eso no se mueve, lo que ahora las tiendas ya no abusan o los distribuidores, si ahora les va entrando stock facil que les entre menos hinchado de precio, al principio habia pocas y las hinchan de precio.
Un saludo Jotole, yo tampoco cambio hasta que no vea una 980ti a menos de 500€, si tarda mucho quiza ya me espero a lo proximo, no pienso colaborar con las subidas de precio.
Seguramente esto es como siempre ese 50% al final será 30% pero me compensa bastante y si la titan suma otro 20% bienvenida sea al ser gamas continuas y mismo tipo de memoria lo veo posible cada uno tiene su estilo de juego los 30fps siempre fue mi limite y siempre ultra y sin filtros en 4K.
Ahora el problema que veo que se puede llegar a dar con la Fury es al tener diferente tipo de memoria no se lleve bien con las otras AMD en W10.
Sera interesante ver cuando salga W10 si ELP3 al tener una gran variedad de gráficas se anima a testear como funcionan las compatibilidades de gráficas de misma generación, mezclar gráficas de diferente generación incluso Amd-Nvidia o simplemente demostrar que al final no funciona todo lo que se dijo.
Saludos.-
Si ELP3 siempre nos informa, se le agradece pues siempre lo mejor es la informacion que te da la gente conocida, que te da impresiones de primera mano que eso vale mucho, aunque nos haga sentir envidia.
Luego los 30 fps me dan repelus y mas en ciertos juegos que se nota mucho tener 60 fps, ojala Dx12 y W10 sea como prometen, pero hasta que no lo vea o me lo cuente alguien de confianza seguire dudándolo.
saludos
Hombre yo me esperaba mas, fíjate que AMD de verdad a hecho muy poco cuanto mejorar su arquitectura, casi toda mejora del TDP es consecuencia del HBM, el GCN sigue siendo un volcán a la hora de correr fuerte. Ese mismo chip no pudiera salir tal como esta, usando GDDR5. AMD necesita parar y pensar muchas cosas, se le va acabando la pólvora, el tiempo se acorta y creo que ese fue el ultimo comodín dellos. Es posible vemos las cotas de AMD bajar a casi nada en los próximos meses. OJO!
Saludo..
Pues esperemos que eso no ocurra y AMD tenga su parte de pastel por que sino nos van a crujir con precios y rendimientos de risa.
Ojala puedan fabricar pronto en un proceso inferior y puedan tomar mejores decisiones, por el bien de todos los compradores, al final lo que nos interesa es comprar mejor y mas barato aunque haya que discutir.
saludos
-
Well, it seems that the problem of the poor performance of the fury X is as it has been said in the drivers, the 15.15 seem to come from the ass:
Catalyst 14.12
Very interesting really, and in nvidia the 352.90 without the bug fix for kepler XD.
It is a good cucumber for its price and its characteristics, it is a shame that elp3 no longer has it, fuck you all XDDDD.
-
Well, it seems that the problem of poor performance of the fury X is as has been said in the drivers, the 15.15 seem to come from nowhere and for proof a button XD:
Catalyst 14.12
Really very interesting, and on nvidia the 352.90 without the bug fix for kepler XD.
It's a good cucumber for its price and its characteristics, it's a shame that elp3 doesn't have it anymore, damn it all XDDDD.
You'll have to forgive me, but I think that review is not correct.
You can't put drivers that don't recognize a graphics card.
From 15.5 onwards, and then the beta 15.6 are the ones for fury.
Drivers from more than half a year ago wouldn't work for it, and besides, they wouldn't work for modern games either.
Don't get your hopes up.
99% of the reviews and owners of the same one agree.
Decepción.No there is no more.
Not even those 1185MHZ of OC are totally believable. One thing is to pass a test by a hair's breadth and full of artifacts, and another thing is to be "fairly" stable. That is, that at least they all hold up to the bench.
Another thing that 99% agree on is that for stability, 75MHZ. There is no more.
In fact, in the reference points that AMD gave to the reviewers, it said that OC up to 1100MHZ.Es that is, only 50 MHz.
There will always be some review that goes against the norm. The € rule and the criticisms, which are fair, have done damage..we have to try to cover it up.
But it's too late, the damage is done and it's difficult to correct it.
Another thing to consider is that it only has 64 ROPs, the same as the 980. Clearly insufficient for the potential of the chip and the bandwidth. A lot of collar for no dog..and that can't be fixed with drivers.
It may have a nice bottleneck in hardware.Regards.
-
Well it seems that's not being said over there XD:
Regarding the ROPs, at pcperspective they have hinted that AMD put too many in the Hawaii XT and the relationship of these with the number of texture units is correct and proportional.
" With only 64 render back ends present on Fiji, the same amount as the Hawaii XT GPU used on the R9 290X, the GPUs capability for final blending might be in question. It's possible that AMD feels that the ROP performance of Hawaii was overkill for the pixel processing capability it provided and thus thought the proper balance was found in preserving the 64 ROPs count on Fiji. I think we'll find some answers in our benchmarking and testing going forward."
I think they know something more than us XD.
Another thing I don't understand is why you so radically discredit Hardwareluxx... the driver issue is well known that the ones that offer the best overall performance are the 14.12, just like the 347.88 for Kepler (in my case, the 353.30 were slightly better) and you can still play the latest games, I don't know where you got that from XD.
Just yesterday, I did a round up to see firsthand the improvement/loss of drivers in Kepler, from the 337.88 to these 353.30 and in none of them did I have problems with Project Cars or The Witcher, to give you two examples of the latest games...
As I say, it's a shame you can't test everything that's being talked about, it would be very interesting.
-
Well it seems that's not what they say over there XD:
Fury X possibly reviewed with incorrect drivers (Xpost /r/AMD) : pcmasterrace
People have to talk about something..because they're bored.
But they say it themselves, starting at 15.15…not 14.12
I've even put some more modern ones. The 15.16...there was no apparent improvement.
Besides, the chip, it's two full Tonga, architecture from 2014. GCN 1.2.No has nothing new except the memory HBM.No I don't know how much you can improve a memory with drivers.
If there are miracle drivers for the Fiji, they must be just as miraculous for the 285.
What they do notice is very bad frame time and gameplay. Let's stop talking about getting 2 more fps at max settings. And think more about the minimums and the playability.De it's no use to me to go to 100 fps, and then turn a corner and drop to 30. I prefer to always go at a constant 60.
As for the drivers, it's not that I authorize or disauthorize, it's that you can't put drivers that don't recognize the graphics card. Unless you manually mod them.
There's nothing more to it.
I can't put drivers from the GTX 980 on the TITAN X.
-
Modifying the.ini I suppose there would be no problem, nor being gcn 1.2 I don't think it would be much of a headache... About the chip, there are quite a few improvements to Tonga so yes it has "new things".
I agree with you on the gameplay, less stuttering at 10 fps more unless they are very low from the start ;D.
Best regards.
-
Javisoft.
Looking better at the review, I confirm that the drivers are a mistake.
They have used the same ones that I and everyone else have. The 15.50
Here you have a screenshot of them:
As you can see, they are exactly the same as the ones I have used or any other review.
So the 14.12 are not the miraculous drivers of the Fury.
Regards.
-
That review from hardwareluxx has the "impressive ability" of showing us the Fury X in almost all games at 1-3 fps above the GTX 980 Ti. It doesn't matter if we're talking about 50 fps, 100 fps or 150 fps.
More impressive when those "minimal" differences but with victories for the Fury X occur regardless of whether a game is known to perform better on nvidia (not necessarily twimtbp, see the example of GRID2), that homogeneity, those Pyrrhic victories, that lack of great disparity that we see in certain games in favor of AMD or nvidia. Only some very rare Pyrrhic defeats for the Fury X vs 980 Ti.
And all tested in two resolutions 1440/1600p and 4K, alternating between not using AA or aniso and putting AA plus aniso as God commands.
As I said, a "curiosity" that goes terribly with certain data from other reviews, and what we know about the performance of certain games:
Benchmark: GRID 2 - AMD Radeon R9 Fury X: the Fiji GPU and its HBM memory in test - HardWare.fr
No Pyrrhic victories, very important differences in performance in certain games, let's not be fools and now believe that Fury X and 980 Ti use the same architecture and stay glued and at the same level regardless of the game used, when precisely the only thing we know today is that it depends a lot on the game, the performance can change drastically...
-
And who says the GRID results, very unbelievable because the differences between brands and yields are more important than what they put there (it's not just a few frames between nvidia and AMD), says the ones from BF4 and so on, not always against AMD because it's also not normal that there's no game where it clearly stands out above, when in the same way that in GRID the differences between AMD-nvidia are more important, the same thing happens with some games that run better on AMD.
I never saw a review so "homogeneous" in tight results. It seems like they carry the same architecture….;D
And the OC, fantastic, getting 35 MHz out of the best result of any other review, and I would bet that most of the OCs of reviews that reached 1150 are unstable (it's easy for an OC to seem "stable" to pass a couple of tests if you don't give it many twists, but in real life in the end they fall down quite a bit).
What I do know is that the OC of ELP3 and its results have very faithfully reflected most of the existing reviews, where it's not that the Fury X performs less, that doesn't matter, it's that depending on the game the performance changes, the OC is what it is because they come tight to the max, etc.
I don't believe in coincidences, and that in the same review with so many victory results but very homogeneous (sniff sniff... it smells like data cooking), they also have the "luck" of having the best OC by far in the entire network. Seeeee......:troll:
-
Javisoft.
Looking better at the review, I confirm that the drivers are the error.
They have used the same ones as I and everyone else. The 15.50
Here you have a screenshot of them:
As you can see, they are exactly the same as the ones I have used or any other review.
So the 14.12 are not the miraculous drivers of the Fury.
Regards.
It also says this right below:
The GPU-Z screenshot confirms the important technical data. With that said we can see that some of the information is incorrect. Looking above we can see the memory bandwidth is not displayed correctly while the number of ROPs are also read incorrectly. Most information is missing as we wait for a newer version of GPU-Z.
We will have to confirm which version they used of course, because as it seems, on the AMD ftp they have updated the driver.
-
And who says the GRID results are very unreliable because the differences between brands and performance are more important than what they put there (it's not just a few frames between NVIDIA and AMD), he says the ones from BF4 and so on, it's not always against AMD because it's also not normal that there's no game where it clearly stands out above, just like in GRID the differences between AMD-NVIDIA are more important, the same happens with some games that run better on AMD.
I've never seen a review so "homogeneous" in tight results. It seems like they were using the same architecture….;D
And the OC, fantastic, getting 35 MHz out of the best result of any other review, and I would bet that most of the OCs in reviews that reached 1150 are unstable (it's easy for an OC to seem "stable" to pass a couple of tests if you don't give it many twists, but in real life, it eventually falls down quite a bit).
What I do know is that the OC of ELP3 and its results have very faithfully reflected most existing reviews, where it's not that the Fury X performs less, that doesn't matter, it's that depending on the game, the performance changes, the OC is what it is because they come maxed out, etc.
I don't believe in coincidences, and that in the same review with so many victory results but very homogeneous (sniff sniff... it smells like data cooking), they also have the "luck" of having the best OC by far in the entire network. Seeeee......:troll:
You see what you want to see XD, on hardwareluxx they're putting maximum filters, while on hardware.fr at 4K Fxaa, among other things, it's difficult to compare results when the filters used in both reviews are so disparate and at the extremes …
BF4 2K Msaa 4X ---> 67 vs 74
BF4 4K Fxaa High --> 69 vs 1AA and 1AF --> 61.4 vs 4 Msaa 16AF --> 41.7
I see it as very normal, anyway, they're not the only page that has good results logically:
Îáçîð âèäåîóñêîðèòåëÿ AMD Radeon R9 Fury X. ×àñòü 3: èãðîâûå òåñòû è âûâîäû
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks - 4K Performance (2/5)
With percentages it's much clearer.
About the OC of one review or another, well … go look at the ones from the titan x or 980Ti to see the disparity of MHz in different reviews, I don't see what the problem is and for such a small difference, but that's not talked about there ¬¬.
I'm not saying that what ELP3 has tested isn't true, I believed it from minute one, I'm saying that there are reviews where it doesn't perform well and others that get good results, that's why I looked for some reason and found what I exposed XD.
According to tweakpc:
http://www.tweakpc.de/benchmarks/benchimg/gruen.gif
According to techpowerup:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfrel_3840.gif
Judge for yourselves, stuttering or tearing (as some websites say) aside ;D.
Best regards.
-
Also puts this right below:
The GPU-Z screenshot confirms the important technical data. With that said we can see that some of the information is incorrect. Looking above we can see the memory bandwidth is not displayed correctly while the number of ROPs are also read incorrectly. Most information is missing as we wait for a newer version of GPU-Z.
We will have to confirm which version they used of course, because as it looks like, on the AMD ftp they have updated the driver.
The GPU-Z does not read the chip information well, because it does not have the microcode.
But that does not mean it does not read the drivers information well.
It is totally independent from each other.
And it is impossible for a review to put 14.12 and be incomprehensible.
It must have been either a typographical error, or a misjudgment referring to the other AMD graphics.
Anyway, since I have had the graphics card. What appears in that review is almost a joke.
But as I say, let everyone console themselves or look where they want. We are all free to believe what we want.
The reality right now, is that it competes more directly with an overclocked GTX 980, than with a 980TI. And we leave the TITAN X aside..because with OC at 4K at maximum, stable both, it beats it by up to 45% in some cases…they even seem to be from another generation.
-
I'm not sure if it was a mistake or if they tested both and then this happened XD, we'll have to send them an email. In any case, as you can see, there are quite a few websites with good performance, if you had a bad experience with it, then bad luck, perhaps it wasn't fine on your system, it wouldn't be the first time it happens, I think it has happened to us all. What I mean is that it's not an isolated incident, there are already people with quad crossfire talking very well about them on forums like overclock.Net and others, it's not to console anyone, it's to try to get more points of view, to me honestly I couldn't care less XD. -
Ves lo que quieres ver XD, en hardwareluxx te estan metiendo maximos filtros, mientras que en hardware.fr a 4K Fxaa, entre otras cosas, es dificil comparar resultados cuando los filtros puestos en ambas review son tan dispares y en los extremos …
Perdona, pero no. La mitad de las pruebas las hacen sin AA y lo que es peor, sin filtro anisotrópico (¿qué necesidad hay de algo así que nos retrotae al siglo pasado, cuando el filtro anisotrópico más básico, 2X, era algo "novedoso"?).
Además de fuera de esto, en hardware.fr hacen las pruebas también con MSAA y configuraciones estándar del juego, por ejemplo Ultra + 4 MSAA para justo BF4, con 1600p, que es muy parecido a 1440p, sólo un poco más exigente.
Y ahí la 980 Ti obtiene 81, y la Fury X 64, en la prueba equivalente de kkdluxxx, apenas hay diferencias ¿quieres que me crea una review donde todos los resultados son extremadamente parejos entre dos gráficas con arquitecturas diferentes, sin disparidades?
A ver si va a ser que el que quiere ver eres tú…. XD
BF4 2K Msaa 4X –-> 67 vs 74
BF4 4K Fxaa High --> 69 vs 1AA y 1AF --> 61.4 vs 4 Msaa 16AF --> 41.7
Yo lo veo muy normal, de todas formas no son la unica pagina que tienen buenos resultados logicamente:
Îáçîð âèäåîóñêîðèòåëÿ AMD Radeon R9 Fury X. ×àñòü 3: èãðîâûå òåñòû è âûâîäû
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X VS Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti Benchmarks - 4K Performance (2/5)
Con los porcentajes esta mucho mas claro.
Sobre el oc de una review u otra, en fin … vete a mirar los de la titan x o 980Ti a ver la disparidad de mhz en distintas reviews, no veo cual es el problema y por tan poca diferencia, pero ahí no se habla ¬¬.
Yo no estoy diciendo que lo que ha probado Elp3 no sea cierto, yo lo crei desde el minuto cero, digo que hay reviews donde no va bien y otras que obtiene buenos resultados, de ahi que buscase alguna razon y encontrase lo que he expuesto XD.
Segun tweakpc:
http://www.tweakpc.de/benchmarks/benchimg/gruen.gif
Segun techpowerup:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfrel_3840.gif
Juzgad vosotros mismo, stuttering o tearing ( como dicen algunas webs ) fuera ;D.
Un saludo.
Vaya selección de páginas reconocidas y en lenguas variopintas, ruso, alemán, todo menos páginas de índole internacional. Menos mal que por lo menos sí pones la de techpowerup, la de ixbt infumable.
Mira, sin quitarte la razón en algunos puntos (que a 4K rinden parecido se ve en casi todas las reviews), lo que estás haciendo buscando reviews que "apoyen" tu argumentación, se llama hacer una criba selectiva de resultados, el hecho de que pocas sean primeras cabeceras internacionales lo señala (ninguna que no sea inglés tiene derecho a llamarse así, por ejemplo poner como referencia una review de noticias3D de la misma índole que Guru3D o techpowerup sería un disparate, por su nula proyección internacional y, porque en parte por su limitado nicho de mercado, tiene la baja calidad que tiene a la hora de las reviews).
Esto es, esto en cualquier experimento o trabajo don datos es inadmisible, reviews hemos visto todos muchas, gracias. No hace falta que nos hagas una selección propia para "enseñarnos la verdad", cada uno tenemos nuestras fuentes. :ugly:
Por otro lado, yo no dije por ningún lado nada de stuttering ni cosas parecidas, a mí no me metas en esos rollos, yo sólo digo que es un fiasco monumental, basado en multitud reviews de primeras cabeceras, y entre los datos que yo sí más confío.
Por cierto compartimos una cabecera como destacable, por lo menos ésa, y es una que uso normalmente para extrapolar resultados, porque siempre ha cuadrado bastante bien con mis propias observaciones:
Techpowerup!.
Y ahí, lo que se ve es lo que he dicho antes, inferior a la GTX 980 Ti en todo menos 4K, donde empata. Y sólo si se retiran un par de juegos "pronvidia" (también se mantienen igualmente un par de juegos proAMD, pero bueno… entendería la eliminación de quizás Project Cars por ser novedad en su setup, pero ¿dos juegos, el WoW además?, menos mal que son sensatos y decidieron hacer las cuentas con tres iteraciones posibles).
Esta gráfica no se puede vender al mismo precio que la GTX 980 Ti, porque en realidad rinde peor fuera de 4K, no tiene OC (si quieres te quedas con los 1188 de la review de kkdluxxx, es lo mismo, nada comparado con una GTX 980 Ti negligente), y lleva 2 GB menos de VRAM, que eso al final pesará un montón con el tiempo y siendo como son gráficas TOP. Y porque no tiene el prestigio de nvidia.
Es sumar dos más dos, no puedes competir con BMW siendo una marca con peor consideración, ofreciendo un coche que es parecido aunque algo peor en algunos aspectos, y pretender cobrar lo mismo que BMW.
-
HITMAN.
Bench PRO-AMD that pulls for you.
4K,ULTRA,8X MSAA
TITAN X 1550MHZ.
When someone reviews from Pakistan, says that a Fury does that, you give me the hint and then I have it again..;)
Regards.
P.D.Compare it with the one I have from that same bench and in those conditions on the Fury.And tell me the % of gain in bench that is Pro-AMD.Si if we pass some PRO-Nvidia, things can be even worse..let's leave it be...
I say it and I repeat it.Either the fury is uncovered and does OCs of 1350MHZ.Or the real competition,although it sounds bad,is more the GTX 980 oced than the TI and TITANS X.This is what there is,RIGHT NOW.And never ever,RIGHT NOW also,a graphic can be destined for 4K having only 4GB.Be they "obsolete" GDRR5, revolutionary HBM or HTPC...4K and 4GB is antagonistic.
