[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X
-
"I think 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."
This is a tremendous exaggeration, because it doesn't make any sense. And no, when we developers program (I happen to be, among other things, an application programmer, not a game programmer, obviously, I'd love to get involved in projects like that) we don't use "RAMDISK", we directly use memory by locating it, not by creating virtual devices to waste clock cycles in accessing what we can store directly in memory.
Seriously, I don't know what you want to prove. Do you know more about the Fury X than anyone else because you've read "better" reviews than the others? That ELP3 doesn't know what he's talking about when here is the only one who can talk about having tried it directly?
I already put a link (which was gracefully deleted by moderation, it seems that it bothers to put links to other Spanish forums, even though I don't see it forbidden in the rules?) with the experiences of the other and only Spanish user who has tasted the Fury X, and his opinion was surprisingly similar to ELP3's, he also sent it back or got rid of it in record time.
This is what there is Javisoft, don't think that people are stupid because they don't share your opinion or because you keep talking about things like RAMDISKs that I don't even know why you mentioned it (it doesn't make sense, you probably wanted to talk more about streaming caching from disk, or something like that, but even so, it was unnecessary to talk like that about how ELP3 passes or not the tests as if you were in front of his computer and you saw everything), we have all seen with our own eyes as much or more than you.
If you are so sure that this graphics card is so good, the solution, very easy, you get it and you give your opinion from personal experience. It's the only thing that can allow you to talk at the same level as ELP3 on the subject, because you talk from hearsay (just like me on this topic), and he is the only one in this forum who doesn't.
It's that simple, without any trouble or creating controversies, the movement is demonstrated by walking, it's absurd to argue more about the subject. I can put 20 reviews saying what I have said and it wouldn't change a damn thing your opinion, just like you would change mine with your 20 reviews.
And I also leave this thread, at least for the moment since I don't like the drift.
-
"Me da que no tienes ni idea de lo que es un ramdisk ni por que las desarrolladoras lo usan, de echo no tiene nada que ver con el framebuffer como tal. "
Esto es una sobrada tremenda, porque además no tiene pizca de sentido. Y no, los desarrolladores cuando programamos (da la casualidad de que soy entre otras cosas programador de aplicaciones, no de juegos evidentemente, ya me gustaría meterme en proyectos así) no usamos "RAMDISK", usamos directamente la memoria localizándola, no creando dispositivos virtuales para perder ciclos de reloj en a acceder a lo que podemos guardar nosotros directamente en memoria.
En serio, no sé qué quieres demsotrar. ¿que sabes más de la Fury X que nadie porque has leido reviews "mejores" que las de los demás? ¿Que ELP3 no sabe de lo que habla cuando aquí es el único que puede hablar de haber probado directamente?
Ya puse un link (que grácilmente borró la moderación, parece que molesta poner enlaces a otros foros españoles, aún cuando en las normas no veo que esté prohibido ¿?) con las experiencias del otro y único usuario español que ha catado la Fury X, y era un reflejo asombrosamente parecido su opinión a la de ELP3, también la envió de vuelta o se libró de ella en tiempo récord.
Esto es lo que hay Javisoft, no pienses que la gente es tonta porque no comparta tu opinión ni te pases hablando de cosas como RAMDISKs que no sé ni porqué lo has mencionado (es que no tiene sentido, seguro que querías hablar más bien de cacheo de streaming desde disco, o algo del estilo, pero aún así, sobraba hablar así sobre cómo pasa o no las pruebas ELP3 como si tú estuvieras delante de su ordenador y lo vieras todo), todos hemos visto con nuestros ojos tanto o más que tú.
Si tan seguro estás de que esta gráfica es tan buena, la solución, muy fácil, la consigues y opinas desde la experiencia propia. Es lo único que te puede permitir hablar al mismo nivel que ELP3 sobre el tema, porque tú hablas de oídas (igual que yo en este tema), y él es el único en este foro que no.
Es así de simple, sin malos rollos ni crear polémicas, el movimiento se demuestra andando, es absurdo discutir más sobre el tema. Te puedo poner 20 reviews diciendo lo que yo he dicho y no cambiaría una mierda tu opinión, igual que tú la mía con tus 20 reviews.
Y también dejo este hilo, por lo menos de momento dado que no me gusta la deriva.
Yo no he criticado sus datos, ni los he puesto en duda, he hablado unica y exclusivamente de los datos de las reviews, creo que deberias releer la rama.
Por el simple echo de no tenerla en mis manos no me excluye de comentar lo que se lee en foros y reviews, por que entonces el 95% de los que estamos escribiendo deberiamos estar callados, algo lógico.
Se intenta intercambiar opiniones de las review con la persona que la ha tenido en mano y ha aportado datos, nada mas, buscando posibles soluciones a su mal rendimiento …
Sobre el ramdisk... bueno, hasta amd tiene el suyo, asus, etc, etc... como programador deberias saber sus ventajas y el por que se exporta vram, y no precisamente a la ram del sistema en general dado la " baja " capacidad que tiene el usuario medio ( 8 gb segun steam ).
Yo no se mas que nadie, pero tampoco menos, creeme que si tuviese una fury seria mucho mas determinante en mis comentarios y estaria dispuesto a intercambiar opiniones como las que yo he puesto aqui sobre otras review y demas.
No entiendo por que os crispais, no voy a tomar por referencia la opinion de uno o dos usuarios solo por que esté comentando en su rama, a uno le ha podido ir mal aquí, te vas a overclock.net y hay usuarios con la opinion contraria y con crossfire por medio...
Ni todo es blanco ni todo es negro, hay una gran escala de colores en medio...
Sobre el usuario español que ha catado la fury x y la ha devuelto, pues mira, si no le convence hace bien, en los foros de nvidia hay gente devolviendo titan x y 980Ti por los TDR y derivados de los maravillosos drivers, y van con este 4 seguidos.
Hacemos un drama y decimos que el GM200 es malo? Por favor... somos ya adultos a mi parecer...
Si tienes algun inconveniente con moderación lo mas logico es que lo comentes con ellos y no lo dejes caer en un comentario, vamos creo yo.
En fin, un saludo y suerte.
-
¡Esta publicación está eliminada! -
Well, we have already separated the posts, and I think what I leave is material for all audiences, although some comments are on the edge of being passionate, but I suppose it can be tolerated.
**
Do we continue with the topic of the big review of ELP3?**, and no more putting in reviews of websites of chiquitistan, to discuss nonsense.Cheers!
-
Guru3D.com Forums - View Single Post - AMD Fury X Owners' Thread
RE: Firestrike + drivers = LoL
Firestrike-Link (Added new result - Graphical scores are just…)
On left: Fury X release driver for W8.1 with Fury X code path (15.150.0.0) - 15664
In middle W10 driver which does not have Fury X code path, so I used Tonga instead (15.200.1040.0.) - 16320
On right W10 driver which does not have Fury X code path, This time tested Hawaii instead (15.200.1040.0.) - 17296And Yes, Graphical score went from 15664 to 16320 and then to 17296 which is more than Hilbert's 16081. (4.2% and then 10.4% improvement).
And at this moment I have highest Graphics score from all people who benched with Single Fury X, that's even against those overclocked. -
Guru3D.com Forums - View Single Post - AMD Fury X Owners' Thread
RE: Firestrike + drivers = LoL
Firestrike-Link (Added new result - Graphical scores are just…)
On left: Fury X release driver for W8.1 with Fury X code path (15.150.0.0) - 15664
In middle W10 driver which does not have Fury X code path, so I used Tonga instead (15.200.1040.0.) - 16320
On right W10 driver which does not have Fury X code path, This time tested Hawaii instead (15.200.1040.0.) - 17296And Yes, Graphical score went from 15664 to 16320 and then to 17296 which is more than Hilbert's 16081. (4.2% and then 10.4% improvement).
And at this moment I have highest Graphics score from all people who benched with Single Fury X, that's even against those overclocked.Por lo que me comentan los compañeros que tienen instalada la RC de win10 dicen que va mejor en todo y dan algo mas de puntuacion en test y juegos, quizas tenga algo que ver, pero es curioso lo del driver XD.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joschi View Post
has anyone managed to run Fury X on W10 Build 10130? bought mine, installed it, but the drivers won't install… only the basic Microsoft Display Driver. i've tried with 15.15 15.200.1040... same effect, GPU-Z 0.8.4 says FijiYes I am running int on W10 build 10130.
And I am on 15.200.1040 which gives better performance than initial review driver.How to install?
- 1st: you have to disable driver signature/conflict enforcement in command line running as dministrator:
-
bcdedit -set loadoptions DISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS
-
bcdedit -set TESTSIGNING ON
- 2nd: modify inf file to include Fiji as device for which driver is:
-
Go to your unpacked driver: 15.200.1040\\Packages\\Drivers\\Display\\WT6A_INF\\
-
Edit: C0185174.inf
-
find line like this: "%AMD67B1.1%" = ati2mtag_Hawaii, PCI\\VEN_1002&DEV_67B1&REV_00
(it has to have ati2mtag_Hawaii there) -
replace PCI\\VEN_1002&DEV_67B1&REV_00 with PCI\\VEN_1002&DEV_7300
-
Take 1st part if string: AMD67B1.1 and search for it
-
at bottom of file you'll find line like this: AMD67B1.1 = "AMD Radeon R9 200 Series"
-
change AMD Radeon R9 200 Series to AMD Radeon R9 Fury X
(or whatever you want your card to be named as) - 3rd: reboot
- 4th: installation
-
Install CCC via standard setup as usual
-
go to device manager and chose manual installation for driver, navigate to modified inf file, select your card. Confirm that you want to use unsigned driver.
Guru3D.com Forums - View Single Post - AMD Fury X Owners' Thread
-
Yes, but from what I see, the driver is different because the operating system is different. WIN 10.
I'm not going to put WIN 10 yet.
It is therefore not known if the improvement is from the driver, or simply from the OS.
A firestrike is a bench dependent on many cosas.No it is not just a bench of GPU.Es it is a bench of the complete system. Like the use of the CPU.Si WIN 10, it makes better use of this, that may be the gain.
In fact, in SLI for example, the improvement from using WIN7 to WIN 8 in firestrike. Is encrypted in almost 1500 points... that is... and it is simply due to the improvement of the CPU threads.
-
Hey… look at that..
-
Oye… mira eso..
Vaya, AMD also sells its Fury X card as a rebranded, it seems to be a hypervitaminated GTX 970 at its core, hehe.
:osvaisacagar:
This has to be a joke or a program error. Or that or we have AMD in the same dock as NVIDIA.
-
Wow, AMD also sells its Fury X as a rebranded card, it seems to be a hypervitaminized GTX 970 at its core, hehe.
:osvaisacagar:
This has to be a joke or a program error. Or else, we have AMD in the same dock as NVIDIA.
What raises suspicion is the fact that in many reviews, the Vram usage of the FX didn't go beyond 3500MB and AMD already said that they are making a fix to unload things (data) from the Vram to RAM so as not to fill the 4GB…
-
What I found suspicious was the fact that in many reviews the use of the FX's Vram did not exceed 3500MB and AMD already said that they are making a fix to unload things (data) from the Vram to RAM and thus not fill the 4GB…
I already commented that the highest use I had seen in the reviews was 3914 mb of vram in shadows of mordor 4K, what was being talked about in the anandtech forums makes no sense at all.
The fact of implementing HBM makes the use of MC considerably reduced and therefore there is more space in the die to put shaders (for example), partitioning the vram makes no sense, besides, that benchmark is quite unreliable …
-
Wow, AMD also sells its Fury X as a rebranded product, it seems to be a hypervitaminized GTX 970 at its core, hehe.
:osvaisacagar:
This has to be a joke or a program error. Or else, we have AMD in the same dock as NVIDIA.
At minute 1':36'' onwards, look at those scratches…:facepalm:
"Super HMB FuryX power":ugly:… I get around 50 and some fps in GTA V with those settings, smooth as silk. :fumeta:
-
Interesting. Very interesting.
I experienced the same thing in my tests.
I didn't comment on anything because I didn't want any controversy, nor was I very sure how the afterburner measured this new graphics card.
But certainly, and being aware of the limitations of this program, and more so with AMD as I mentioned before. Starting from 3600mb consumed, the games or benchmarks, had significant scratches, like being short of Vram. Curiously it was from a similar figure to that of the often mentioned GTX 970.
That's why I commented that their playable experience was not satisfactory.
I don't know exactly where the problem was, but someone hay.Ni knows what the solution is.. I suppose drivers? as always..?
-
It seems that the new drivers are not the solution… It performs just as poorly.
-
Since I can't edit it, I'm putting it here that I've posted a video.
-
One is bad and the other is good regarding the issue of the pump noise, first the bad one:
Retail Fury X coolers still whine, don't include fix - The Tech Report
Retail AMD Fury X Sound Testing - Pump Whine Investigation | PC Perspective
Why do I put two links for the "bad" part? Because both show different things about the same issue, in Techreport they are interested in this:
AMD received feedback that during open bench testing some cards emit a mild "whining" noise. This is normal for most high speed liquid cooling pumps; Usually the end user cannot hear the noise as the pumps are installed in the chassis, and the radiator fan is louder than the pump. Since the AMD Radeon R9 FuryX radiator fan is near silent, this pump noise is more noticeable.
The issue is limited to a very small batch of initial production samples and we have worked with the manufacturer to improve the acoustic profile of the pump. This problem has been resolved and a fix added to production parts and is not an issue.
AMD reported that the pump noise issue had been fixed and only appeared in a few production units of the first batch, before fixing it. It is important to point this out because the reality was different, in basically all reviews and units sold to users, at least Spanish ones, have found said buzzing, that is, it is not limited only to a few production units, as will be clearer when talking about the "good" part.
PCPer adds tests with 2 units bought from newegg where they have found the same or worse pump buzzing, you can listen to recordings, etc. So Techreport conveniently points out that AMD said something that was not true, and PCPer demonstrates it.
Now the good part:
AMD fixes R9 Fury X Whining Noises
AMD fixes the error by clearly changing the pump issue without small patches, although this movement is so clear and almost 2 weeks after the model's presentation it is a bit contradictory with their words that assured that the problem was fixed in the units that were going to stores.
The bad thing is that you can't distinguish at first sight the good units from the bad ones, since you need to remove the front cover of the card (something that does NOT invalidate the warranty, for those who want to check, know that there is no problem).
The error has been definitely recognized and corrected, although it would have been better to have said clearly that it would be corrected in the following days after the launch, not that it was already "done".
-
jopet.. what a mess is that…
-
Someone who has a FuryX and is good at doing some benchmarks with the GPU Clock at 700MHz or 800MHz would be appreciated
;D -
Interesting. Very interesting.
I experienced the same thing in my tests.
I didn't comment on anything because I didn't want any controversy, nor was I very sure how the afterburner measured this new graphics card.
But certainly, and being aware of the limitations of this program, and more so with AMD as I mentioned before. Starting from 3600mb consumed, the games or benchmarks, threw up significant scratches, like being out of Vram. Curiously, it was from a similar figure to that of the often mentioned GTX 970.
That's why I commented that their playable experience was not satisfactory.
I don't know exactly where the problem was, but someone hay.Ni knows what the solution is.. I suppose drivers? as always..?
In that GTA video, you can see that when the frame rate drops, it releases vram, in some cases it goes from 3.6 to 2.6 gb, I don't know if the operating system doesn't treat that memory well but the video shows that it releases vram during the frame.
If it took advantage of the 4GB, something similar would happen, because you can see that it loads and sometimes reaches 3.7 or close to it and that's when it releases vram, but that card is the one that would need 8gb and not the 390x.
Although with one card it won't be able to set those parameters to go to 30 fps or less and you would have to lower some options to go to 60 fps, it would lower consumption, but with two cards or more it will definitely limit that memory.If they keep releasing games that are so voracious of vram, this card is doomed and I thought that even before they released it, that memory seems very green, they need to release with more density and that it's not too expensive.
Although if it works well in W10, adding memory, the same thing if it serves them, but I don't think everyone will switch quickly to w10.It could also be a matter of the games releasing the vram, the Titan X seems to be able to locate 8Gb, the 980Ti stores up to 6Gb, and this one releases aa at 3.8gb, the more memory the graphics card has, the more it marks as used, it could be that the games accumulate vram and don't release it until they need it and give the frame.
regards
