[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X
-
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?
-
What score do you give the Titan X in Heaven 1080p extreme?
About 110 fps with everything maxed out and 8x AA.
The Fury, 70.
-
Te iba a contestar a tu comentario anterior, poniéndote datos de otras webs comparativas con misma resolución, 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 timan 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, no me hagas ponerme los datos por favor...
Mira Javisoft, la cosa es tan simple como que tú puedes exponer las reviews que tú quieras, pero yo igual que tú, leo reviews en internet, muchas en su momento hace 2 días, con la diferencia que NO leo cabeceras de segunda en otros idiomas, aunque posiblemente me enteraría algo mejor de lo que dicen sin traductor automático, no me da la gana de estar perdiendo el tiempo entendiendo ruso, por ejemplo, aunque lo chapurreé. Con el alemán menos. Ya me basta con recurrir a sitios conocidos en inglés, y en un puro exceso, hardware.fr en francés, lengua que reconozco que no domino, pero solo porque se dio a conocer y mucho en la prensa internacional a través de su versión inglesa behardware. Y porque ha demostrado una calidad que no tienen otras webs.
Sea como sea, yo leo cierta "prensa", he leído más de una decena de reviews y he visto sus resultados con mis propios ojos, crítico con cada prueba que he visto. Tú tienes tu opinión, que recurre a fuentes más exóticas, yo tengo la mía, y no tengo ni pizca de necesidad de que me vengas explicando qué veo o no en las reviews.
Gracias pero no, no necesito que nadie me "aleccione" sobre cómo es en realidad la Fury X.
Y te lo vuelvo a decir, lo de kkdluxxx es muy cantoso, ninguna review de TODAS las que he visto ha mostrado la impresionante homogeneidad de resultados (detalle que no paras de obviar al recurrir a fuentes como ésta) entre juegos y pruebas. Y todos aquí sabemos que eso no va así, hay juegos que van mucho mejor en AMD, y juegos que van mucho mejor en nvidia.
Solo por eso lo considero un sitio nada fiable, no es en absoluto creíble una victoria casi continua salpicada de 1-2 derrotas puntuales, y todos los resultados en un margen de diferencia de un 5% o menos. Tampoco es creíble lo visto en otras de las reviews que has puesto, que a baja resoluciones y con muchos fps generados fuera la Fury X la que se llevaba las victorias, cuando está sobradamente demostrado el problema del driver de AMD para mantener altas tasas de fps cuando la carga gráfica es liviana (hablo de resoluciones como 1600x900).
Pero todo esto da igual, insisto, aunque fueran de "mi gusto" las reviews que eliges, resulta que ya vengo leído sobre el tema, gracias. No necesito que tras el trabajo que me llevó leerme tantas reviews venga nadie a cambiarme las impresiones, más cuando he visto a varios usuarios españoles que sí la han probado claramente decepcionados (no solo ELP3).
Que si tanto te gusta, coño, cómprala y pasa algún review por aquí para mostrarnos sus bondades, el movimiento se demuestra andando, no jugando a las cartas estilo magic con "mis reviews son mejores que las tuyas", que es un juego que podemos ponernos a hacer para no llegar a ningún sitio… :troll:
-
Javi, leave it alone for real.. 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 maxed out at 4K.
The Fury and 980, when I've wanted them, I've obliterated them with a single stroke, no matter what the afterburner marks. Which, by the way, isn't accurate because you can't measure VRAM from Win 7 with precision. And even less so with AMD graphics. As the manufacturer has said thousands of times. Because, among other things, AMD doesn't feel like letting MSI do it.
I suspect you have no idea what a ramdisk is or why developers use it. In fact, it has nothing to do with the framebuffer as such.
I see you know a lot and I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where the remaining MB in my configuration with the 750TI 2GB (8 GB of Ram) go, so I can play it without problems at constant 60 fps at ultra.
Best regards.
-
Look at Javisoft, the thing is as simple as the fact that you can expose the reviews you want, but I, like you, read reviews on the internet, many of them two days ago, with the difference that I DO NOT read second-hand headlines in other languages, although I would probably understand better what they say without an automatic translator, I don't feel like wasting time understanding Russian, for example, even if I mumble it. Less so with German. I'm satisfied with resorting to well-known sites in English, and in a pure excess, hardware.fr in French, a language I admit I don't master, but only because it became widely known in the international press through its English version behardware. And because it has demonstrated a quality that other websites do not have.
Anyway, I read certain "press", I have read more than a dozen reviews and I have seen their results with my own eyes, being critical with each test I have seen. You have your opinion, which resorts to more exotic sources, I have mine, and I don't have the slightest need for you to come and explain to me what I see or not in the reviews.
Thanks but no, I don't need anyone to "advise" me on what the Fury X is really like.
And I'll tell you again, the thing with kkdluxxx is very sing-songy, no review of ALL the ones I've seen has shown the impressive homogeneity of results (a detail that you keep ignoring when resorting to sources like this) between games and tests. And everyone here knows that it's not like that, there are games that run much better on AMD, and games that run much better on NVIDIA.
Just for that, I consider it an unreliable site, it's not at all credible to have an almost continuous victory sprinkled with 1-2 occasional defeats, and all results within a margin of difference of 5% or less. Nor is it credible what was seen in other reviews you've posted, that at low resolutions and with many fps generated outside the Fury X would take the victories, when it's more than proven the problem of the AMD driver to maintain high fps rates when the graphic load is light (I'm talking about resolutions like 1600x900).
But all this doesn't matter, I insist, even if the reviews you choose were "to my liking", it turns out that I have already read about the subject, thank you. I don't need anyone to come and change my impressions after the work it took me to read so many reviews, especially when I have seen several Spanish users who have clearly been disappointed (not just ELP3) after testing it.
If you like it so much, damn it, buy it and post a review here to show us its benefits, the movement is demonstrated by walking, not by playing magic cards style "my reviews are better than yours", which is a game we can play to get nowhere… :troll:
I know where those results come from wwwendigo..but I passed on saying it.
They are called AMD benchmarks.
The problem here is that many don't know how to be a reviewer.
I'll explain it briefly.
AMD sends by mail to reviewers those so-called "benchmarks". For them, they know that the graphics are in correct values.
These benchmarks are an absolute nonsense. It simply consists of bringing out your best virtue and worsening the rival's, although the user will never put those graphic options.
It's exactly like that. In Far Cry 4, you put AA OFF. In anisotropic 4X, AO OFF, vegetation Ultra, shadows on Medium..etc..etc.
A mishmash of options that would never be put manulamente.No is the typical game settings of all Ultra, High or Medium.
I'm sure that some reviews didn't even bother to test the graphics, and directly put the benchmarks (which come with the frames that their graphics and the competition are supposed to give) and just did a copy&paste of said internal mail.
Generally these benchmarks tend to give real frame bestialidades even at 4K.
Fortunately, 99% of the real reviews ignore these "benchmarks" and test things normally.
Regards.
-
Look at Javisoft, the thing is as simple as the fact that you can expose the reviews you want, but I, like you, read reviews on the internet, many of them two days ago, with the difference that I DO NOT read second-hand headlines in other languages, although I would probably understand what they say better without an automatic translator, I don't feel like wasting time understanding Russian, for example, even if I mumble it. Less so with German. I'm satisfied with resorting to well-known sites in English, and in a pure excess, hardware.fr in French, a language I admit I don't master, but only because it became widely known in the international press through its English version behardware. And because it has demonstrated a quality that other websites do not have.
Anyway, I read certain "press", I have read more than a dozen reviews and I have seen their results with my own eyes, being critical with each test I have seen. You have your opinion, which resorts to more exotic sources, I have mine, and I have not the slightest need for you to come and explain to me what I see or not in the reviews.
Thanks but no, I don't need anyone to "advise" me on what the Fury X is really like.
And I'll tell you again, the thing with kkdluxxx is very sing-songy, none of the reviews I have seen have shown the impressive homogeneity of results (a detail that you keep ignoring when resorting to sources like this) between games and tests. And everyone here knows that it's not like that, there are games that run much better on AMD, and games that run much better on NVIDIA.
Just for that, I consider it an unreliable site, it is not at all credible a near continuous victory dotted with 1-2 occasional defeats, and all results within a margin of difference of 5% or less. It is also not credible what was seen in other reviews you have put, that at low resolutions and with many fps generated outside the Fury X would take the victories, when it is well demonstrated the problem of the AMD driver to maintain high fps rates when the graphic load is light (I'm talking about resolutions like 1600x900).
But all this doesn't matter, I insist, even if the reviews were "to my liking", it turns out that I have already read about the subject, thank you. I don't need anyone to come and change my impressions after the work it took me to read so many reviews, especially when I have seen several Spanish users who have clearly been disappointed (not just ELP3).
If you like it so much, damn it, buy it and post a review here to show us its benefits, the movement is demonstrated by walking, not by playing magic cards style "my reviews are better than yours", which is a game we can play to get nowhere… :troll:
Sorry to disappoint you, I'm not going to buy the graphics card to prove anything to you, fortunately I have more than enough in hard ;D.
Regarding the reviews, I am the first to be disappointed as I expected more, I expected 5-10% at most occasionally more, but that doesn't make me see that the framerate is not as bad as you want to paint it and that the gaming experience is improvable.
I have read many reviews already for you to come and say the opposite, as I told you before the numbers don't lie, people do, stick with your truth and that's it, like the 970 being superior to the 780Ti and those things that others have already checked in situ and are not true.
So the Fury X doesn't excite me but I don't paint it as a failure, I debate the impressions that the reviews and users like this case ELP3 leave me, another thing is that what I refute you don't like and you always go off on a tangent
, without acrimony.Best regards.
