[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X
-
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.
-
Price it at 550-600€ and you'll see how the appreciation of the chart changes.
I mean, it's not much more than a GTX 980, with the same VRAM, and it gives enough of an advantage in many situations to paint a nice picture... That's what it is, sometimes it looks like the GTX 980 Ti, but not always, or most of the time. The OC is not an argument in its favor.
But launched against the 980 at its price from a month ago, it would do damage, give prestige and direct and indirect sales (in the same way that selling the 390X with 8 GB for no more than 350€, the 390 for 300€, would be a success and not what's happening now).
-
I say it and I repeat it. Either the fury is uncorked and makes OCs of 1350MHZ. Or the real competition, although it sounds bad, is more the GTX 980 oced than the TI and TITANES X. This is what there is, RIGHT NOW. And never ever, RIGHT NOW also, a graphics card can be destined for 4K having only 4GB. Whether they are "obsolete" GDRR5, revolutionary HBM or HTPC… 4K and 4GB is antagonistic.
Yes sir. That's the first thing I thought. If 1080p with filters in new generation games the 3-4GB fall. Then, 4K?
That's why it's not strange that it looks like a frankenstein monster, something old, something new… something borrowed and something blue xD -
HITMAN.
Bench PRO-AMD que tira para atás..
4K,ULTRA,8X MSAA
TITAN X 1550MHZ.
Cuando alguna review de Pakistan,diga que una fury hace eso,me dais el toque y entonces la vuelvo a tener..;)
Saludos.
P.D.Comparadla con la que tengo de ese mismo bench y en esas condiciones en la Fury.Y decidme el % de ganancia en bench que es Pro-AMD.Si pasamos unos PRO-Nvidia,la cosa puede ser aún peor..dejémoslo estar…
Lo digo y lo repito.O la fury se destapa y hace OCs de 1350MHZ.O la competencia real,aunque suene mal,es mas la GTX 980 ocedada que las TI y TITANES X.Esto es lo que hay,AHORA MISMO.Y nunca jamás de los jamases,AHORA MISMO también,una gráfica puede ser destinada para 4K teniendo solo 4GB.Sean "obsoletas" GDRR5, revolucionarias HBM o HTPC...4K y 4GB es antagónico.
Que la pongan por 550-600€ y ya verán cómo cambia la apreciación de la gráfica.
O sea, poco más que una GTX 980, con la misma VRAM, y sacándole suficiente ventaja en muchas situaciones para pintar un bonito cuadro…. Es lo que es, a veces se parece a la GTX 980 Ti, pero no siempre, ni la mayoría de las veces. El OC no es un argumento a su favor.
Pero lanzada contra la 980 a su precio de hace un mes, sí haría daño, daría prestigio y ventas directas e indirectas (de la misma forma que vender la 390X con 8 GB por no más de 350€, la 390 por 300€, sería un acierto y no lo que pasa ahora).
Evidentemente en las manos de AMD está.
Si esta gráfica se sitúa a ese precio.Indudablemente sería su sector y podría arañar bastantes ventas.No nos engañemos.Las flashsip.No són la gama que más vende ni que mas dinero dá.Solo dá el tenerla mas larga y el prestigio.
También hay que tener en cuenta una cosa.Aunque la refrigeración es excelente,al menos en el núcleo,la gente no quiere poner esas cosas en sus cajas.Y aunque cueste mas caro,en realidad es un hándicap a tener en cuenta.Y si hablamos de Multigpu ni te cuento.Ha comentado Javisoft que hay gente encantada de su Quadfire.Me gustaría saber en caja meten eso..
Al igual que la 390X,si la ponen a precio de GTX 970,que es con la que realmente se pelea,tiene argumentos como esos 8GB,aunque sean de adorno,porque la gráfica no tiene potencia suficiente,ni esta ni ninguna,salvo quizás la TITAN X oceada,para mover cosas decentemente a 4K,pero indudablemente tiene bastantes argumentos para dar guerra y vender.Aunque el consumo y el OC,tampoco estén de su parte.
Sí señor. Eso es lo primero que pensé. Si 1080p con filtros en juegos de nueva hornada los 3-4GB caen. Entonces, 4K?
Por eso no esraro que parezca un engendro frankenstein, algo viejo, algo nuevo… falta algo prestado y algo azul xDMas o menos..xD
Pero en términos generales creo que se puede decir,y se debe decir,que esta "nueva" gama de AMD es absolutamente decepcionante en todas y cada una de sus gráficas.TODO són refritos,incluso esta Fury en su núcleo lo es.Han experimentado.Pero no han innovado.No hay nueva arquitectura real.
Deben sentarse,reflexionar,ver por donde quieren ir y que camino tomar…actualmente están bordeando el "rídiculo" como cuando hicieron con sus FXs Ultraoceados a 5,0GHZ con RL de fábrica que intentaron meter por 900$ y acabaron malvendiendo por un cuarto de su precio.
Lo que está pasando en GPU lleva un camino similar.
La cosa no está en "cebar" a OC a una gráfica de serie,ni en aumentar consumos hasta el absurdo,ni en poner RLs de fábrica para "tapar" aspectos.
La cosa está,en saber realmente cúal es el rumbo que quieres tomar,y qué demonios es la parte en la cual tú puedes sacar beneficios.Centrarte en esa e intentar ser la mejor.Si es con APUS,a las APUS.Si es con micros de 75€,puies ahí,si es con gráficas de hasta 180€ lo mismo...pero el que mucho abarca,poco aprieta..
Nunca me ha gustado mucho AMD.Excepto en los Athlon.Pero no quiero monopolios,estoy hasta las narices de pagar 1000€ a Intel por un puñetero X.Estoy hasta las narices de pagar a Nvidia otro tanto por otra X..
Pero esto es lo que hay.Y en cuanto ellos pueden,se suben a la burra y piden 700...Ya sabemos que no són ONGs...pero la competencia tiene que ser real,no semipactada.Como está claro que es el caso..
Saludos.
-
The experiences of @ELP3 are repeated by what appears to be the first user for N3D who has tasted the Fury X
There is some comment on previous pages, the user is "Undertaker00", and I am basically amazed to see how the experiences with ELP3 are mirrored:
1.- Very good core cooling, very quiet fan, but this is spoiled by a noisy pump that has a low intensity and high frequency sound that is not recorded in reviews but is annoying (of those sounds as annoying as the clatter of the GTX 670 blower, or continuous buzzing of coils). In fact it is so common that on some website they asked AMD about this. AMD assured that it was a problem only of tester units and that it had been solved in production units.
We have already seen it, two units from Spanish users, two with the cheerful buzzing of the pump.
2.- OC almost identical, does not even reach 100 MHz, if javisoft is surprised by my distrust with kkdluxxx it is because they are basically mirroring OCs of less than 1150 in almost everywhere (<100), and a few only barely exceed 100 MHz.
3.- Apparently unsatisfactory performance, due to drivers or whatever. Apparently on many occasions it does not stand out from the 290X (that's what the N3D user assures). Be that as it may, for the only performance data I have seen him provide, and compared to another N3D user with a 980 Ti, it seems that it is not going very well.
Everything is also ending with the pattern of making a return without waiting even 2 days. Another record of permanence.
I don't know if it's because expectations were too high, or if the drivers are immature, or people when they buy them and know that they have paid the same or almost as much as a 980 Ti, when they see these performances they lament (in the end it is a lot of money), but there are already 2 out of 2 users who return them (although I think that ELP3 of all would not have kept it, but he also did not give much time after seeing it running).
So I repeat, at a minimum lower prices and enough so that people do not regret not having bought a 980 Ti with that same money, sometimes the perception of a product is a lot of psychology combined with pecuniary relativism.
There is no bad card that a good price does not make good, nor a good card that with a bad price becomes a mockery.
-
This video by reviewer Jayz, demonstrates once again, the reality: Greetings. -
Las experiencias de @ELP3 se repiten por el que parece ser primer usuario por N3D que ha catado la Fury X
Hay algún comentario más en páginas anteriores, el usuario es "Undertaker00", y básicamente me maravilla ver cómo se calcan las experiencias con ELP3:
1.- Muy buena refrigeración del núcleo, ventilador muy silencioso, pero esto estropeado por una bomba ruidosa que tiene un sonido de poca intensidad y alta frecuencia que no se registra en reviews pero es molesto (de esos sonidos tan molestos como el traqueteo del blower de las GTX 670, o zumbidos continuos de bobinas). De hecho es tan común que en algún website preguntaron sobre esto a AMD. AMD aseguró que era un problema sólo de unidades de tester y que había sido solucionado en las unidades de producción.
Ya lo vemos, dos unidades de usuarios españoles, dos con zumbido alegre de la bomba.
2.- Oc casi calcado, ni llega a 100 MHz, si a javisoft le extraña mi desconfianza con kkdluxxx es porque básicamente se están calcando OCs de menos de 1150 en casi todas partes (<100), y unos pocos sólo superan por los pelos los 100 MHz.
3.- Rendimiento aparentemente poco satisfactorio, por drivers o lo que sea. Por lo visto en no pocas ocasiones no se destaca de la 290X (eso asegura el usuario de N3D). Sea como sea por el único dato que le he visto aportar de rendimiento, y comparado con otro usuario de N3D con una 980 Ti, parece que muy fina no va.
Todo además acabando con el patrón de hacer una devolución sin esperar ni 2 días. Otro récord de permanencia.
No sé si es porque las expectativas eran demasiado grandes, o si los drivers son inmaduros, o la gente cuando las compran y saben que han pagado igual o casi con una 980 Ti, al ver estos rendimientos se lamentan (al final es un pastón), pero ya van 2 de 2 usuarios que las devuelven (aunque me da que ELP3 de todas tampoco se la iba a quedar, pero tampoco le dió mucho margen de tiempo tras verla rodando).
Así que lo repito, como mínimo bajar precios y lo suficiente para que la gente no lamente no haber comprado con esa misma pasta una 980 Ti, a veces la percepción de un producto tiene mucho de psicológico combinado con el relativismo pecuniario.
No hay tarjeta mala que un buen precio no ponga como buena, ni buena tarjeta que con un mal precio se convierta en mofa.
Te iba a contestar a tu comentario anterior, poniendote datos de otras webs comparativas con misma resolucion, filtros y juegos, pero caí que es entrar donde tu quieres y no va a ser así …
No digo que la experiencia de juego sea buena, pero los datos están ahí y yo no barro para ningún lado, soy más pro-amd y tengo 5 nvidias en 3 equipos de tres gamas diferentes con procesadores intel todos...
Intento ser objetivo e imparcial, dicho esto y viendo que anandtech todavía no ha sacado review ya que están hablando con ingenieros de amd de forma muy estrecha, se puede ver por ahora esto:
GPU 2015 Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech
Mientras que en pcperspective se ve esto:
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB Review - Fiji Finally Tested | PC Perspective
Como se puede apreciar bajo casi todas las resoluciones hay una disparidad de fps propia de las distintas configuraciones de filtros y así lo dicen en su review antes de empezar, fiarte de lo que dice techpowerup hoy en día con sus reviews con metodología de hace 10 años, con una disparidad de resultados alarmante entre series salidas al mercado … mala referencia tienes tu en mi opinión.
No cuadran ni sus propios datos en su database, no se cómo te cuadran estos con los tuyos... increíble cuanto menos.
Guru3d no es santo de mi devoción desde hace un par de años, pero por lo menos sus datos están más acordes a la realidad y pasados el tiempo.
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X review - Introduction
A 4K está a la altura e incluso por encima, que es para lo que está diseñada. Viendo los timeframe se nota que la experiencia de juego no va a ser tan óptima como con nvidia, simplemente hay que esperar a mejores drivers.
No recuerdo dónde pero leí que AMD buscaba ingeniero senior para sus drivers entre otros puestos, vamos a ver en qué se traduce eso con el tiempo.
En cuanto al oc, pcperspective 1150 mhz, guru3d 1125 mhz, hardwareluxx 1185 mhz, hothardware 1155 mhz, hexus 1140 mhz, legitreview 1130 mhz, techpowerup 1150 mhz, bittech 1130 mhz, hardwarecanucks 1160 mhz, nlhardware 1145 mhz, sweclockers 1135 mhz, hardwareheaven 1140 mhz.
En resumen, que como la media da 1145 mhz, en hardwareluxx no pueden tener una muestra que haya subido más, solo un 2% más, en definitiva, nos timen y mienten, en fin … mejor no hacemos lo mismo con la 980TI y sus reviews...
Resumiendo, en 4K la Fury X es competitiva, mucho, a la altura como mínimo de la 980Ti y se ahoga menos cuanto más le demandamos.
Hay review a patadas para verlo, lo que sería totalmente mentira es decir que es competitiva en el resto de resoluciones, pero no es su objetivo realmente, ni por precio ni por gama...
Podemos debatir lo que quieras, pero los números son números y estos no mienten, como digo hay datos de sobra...
-
Javisoft.
And I don't want controversies.
It can never ever be 4K, a goal for graphics with only 4GB of Vram.
And I tell you this with firsthand experience as I have a Dell U3214.
Real 4K has little to do with simulated downsampling. More depth of field, more demanding, less performance and more Vram consumption.
Best regards.
-
Hello everyone.
I have been disconnected for a LONG time.
But the bug has bitten me 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.
What monitor are you currently using for 4K?
Regards.-
Yes sir. That's the first thing I thought. If 1080p with filters in new-generation games the 3-4GB fall. Then, 4K?
That's why it's not strange that it looks like a frankenstein monster, something old, something new... something borrowed and something blue xDWhen I was about to buy graphics for 4K I was looking a lot at 8GB models when the 290X 8Gb came out on the market. In the tests done, the performance in half of the tested games gave the same as the 4GB versions and the other half an improvement of 3 to 5 fps which did not justify the additional difference of $ 150 for those 4GB.
Regards.-
-
For me the best one out there, or at least it was when I bought it.
The Dell U3214
Eizo panel.
An absolute blast…
With the power of the 290X it's normal.
But when you put in the new ones, and more so if it's SLI or CFX.. things change and a lot..
-
Javisoft.
Looking better at the review, I confirm that it is a mistake with the drivers.
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.
By the way, they are the 15.15 and not the 15.5 that are giving them so many problems, in fact guru3d uses the 15.15 and gets better results …
Moreover, I go further, the latest drivers for AMD 3XX are 15.15 V2 XD:
AMD Catalyst 15.15 v2 for R(x) 300 Series - AMD Catalyst Drivers - VideoCardz Forums
EDIT:
In hardwareluxx they have corrected the error, they have used the 15.15 so the driver has affected the performance that you have seen, it seems.
Regards.
-
I have the errata.
I talked about 15.50 when I meant 15.15 again, damn.. sorry.
15.5
AMD puts the year, which is 2015, and the month in which they release them, MAY 5. JUNE 6. That's why they are 15.5 or 15.6
As you can understand, there is no month 15 or 50..;)
Look at my posts.
You will see that they are the same drivers..
And the others you mention are the beta 15.6, which I also put and told you about.. special for that crap of "batman".. which, by the way, they have removed from sale with all the accuracy in the world.
-
Javisoft.
And I don't want any controversy.
It can never be 4K, a goal for graphics with only 4GB of Vram.
And I say this with firsthand experience as I have a Dell U3214.
Real 4K has little to do with simulated downsampling. More depth of field, more demanding, less performance and more Vram consumption.
Best regards.
It's not a controversy, in some reviews they have already addressed the issue of 4Gb, if you think it's not enough, and as you imply it's a hindrance, I would like you to explain to me why the FPS here don't drop like a beast:
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/R9-FURY-X-2/R9-FURY-X-2-49.jpg
Best regards.
-
I have the errata.
I talked about 15.50 when I meant 15.15 again, damn.. sorry.
15.5
AMD puts the year, which is 2015, and the month in which they release them, MAY 5. JUNE 6. That's why they are 15.5 or 15.6
As you can understand, there is no month 15 or 50..;)
Look at my posts.
You'll see that they are the same drivers..
And the others you mention are the beta 15.6, which I also put up and told you about.. special for that "batman" crap.. which, by the way, they have taken off sale with all the right in the world.
One thing, I think I read that you had problems with realbench at half an hour or so, I don't know if I'm rambling, but they are talking about the high usage of pciex lines with the fury x.
Is it possible that your oc is not totally stable and gave you problems? Because realbench pulls a lot on pciex.
-
It's not a polemic, in some reviews they have already addressed the issue of the 4Gb, if you think it's not enough, and as you hint it's a burden, I'd like you to explain to me why the FPS here don't drop like a beast:
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/R9-FURY-X-2/R9-FURY-X-2-49.jpg
Best regards.
Well because they haven't managed to put everything to the max or the bench doesn't consume more Vram.
What amuses me Javi, is that you show me screenshots from reviews having had the graphics card.
Why don't you explain to me, why in Hitman, the Fury has 1 fps minimum, and the TITAN X 26?
The PCIe thing is obvious..
-
For me the best there is, or at least there was when I bought it.
The Dell U3214
Eizo panel.
An absolute blast…
With the power of the 290X it's normal.
But when you put in the new ones, and more if it's SLI or CFX.. things change and a lot..
Yes sir, that Dell is a real gem, I would have bet on the Dell P2715Q with IPS panel which is also very well spoken of.
Do you think about buying a companion for this fury to try it with Windows 10?
Regards.-
-
Well because they have not managed to put everything to the maximum or the bench does not consume more Vram.
What amuses me Javi, is that you show me screenshots of reviews having had the graphics card.
Why don't you explain to me, why in Hitman, the Fury has 1 fps at minimum, and the TITAN X 26?
The PCIe thing is obvious..
Well it is obvious, ramdisk is used, just like in COD:AW, with a consumption of around 7GB, not even with graphics cards with 2GB will the framerate go through the roof.
That's one thing, what is being debated now with the HBM is that in games at 4K ultra, none that I have seen, have managed to collapse the 4GB, the maximum I have seen has been 3914 mb (shadows of mordor), while in the titan X it fills almost entirely the vram, from which it is deduced that the brutal bandwidth and the computing capacity of the gpu prevent the timelapse in the vram and the great use of the pciex lines.
When Anandtech's review comes out we will have much more data on this topic in my opinion.
-
Yes sir, an authentic gem that Dell, I would have bet on the Dell P2715Q with IPS panel that is also very well spoken of.
Are you thinking of buying a companion for this fury to try it with Windows 10?
Regards.-
The fury flew Patagonian
It made no sense to have it.
I have 3 TITAN X and 2 GTX 980. I wanted to try to see if this time it was the definitive one, or again it was smoke..no need to answer, right?
Regards.
-
Well, it's obvious, it uses ramdisk, just like in COD:AW, with a consumption of about 7GB, so even with 2GB graphics, the framerate won't go through the roof.
That's one thing, what's being debated now with HBM is that in games at 4K ultra, none that I've seen have collapsed the 4GB, the maximum I've seen is 3914 mb (shadows of mordor), while on the Titan X it fills almost entirely the vram, from which it's deduced that the brutal bandwidth and the gpu's computing capacity prevent the timelapse in the vram and the heavy use of the pciex lines.
When Anandtech's review comes out, I think we'll have a lot more data on this topic.
Javi, leave it really... for you the sugus..
I don't know where you read those things..but it's a joke, really..a joke.
That's why I say there's nothing like trying things out.
I've never seen the TITAN X fill the framebuffer in TRI SLI with filters and at maximum at 4K.
The Fury and 980, when I've wanted them, I've fulminated them with a single stroke, mark what the afterburner marks. Which, by the way, isn't accurate because you can't measure the VRAM from Win 7 with precision. And even less in AMD graphics. As the manufacturer has said thousands of times. Because, among other things, AMD doesn't feel like letting MSI do it.
-
The fury flew Patagonian
It made no sense to have it.
I have 3 TITAN X and 2 GTX 980.I wanted to try to see if this time it was the definitive one,or again it was smoke..you don't have to answer, right?
Regards.
What score do the titan x give you in heaven 1080p extreme?
