[Review by ELP3] AMD Radeon FURY X
-
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
-
What do you think about that?
Overclockers UK Forums - View Single Post - The Fury(X) Fiji Owners Thread
-
ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY | RADEON FURY X | FRAME PERFORMANCE 1440P | MSAA4X MSAA2X FXAA
ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY | GTX 980TI | FRAME PERFORMANCE 1440P | MSAA4X
2 WAY-SLI GTX 980 TI G1 GAMING | ASSASSIN'S CREED UNITY | ULTRA HIGH BENCHMARK | 1440P
-
Just passing by to say, ELP3 was right. The Furiouses are not that furious.
Check out this REVIEW
Here the channel on YT with the videos.
Best regards.
-
Just passing by to say, ELP3 was right. The Furious ones are not that furious.
Check out this REVIEW
Here's the channel on YT with the videos.
Best regards.
how much is that 980? that should go over 1500, that's not an OC model, it must be an oced one, anyway it seems that the 980 performs well with OC.
let's see if I find one for less than 300€, let's see if they release a refresh like the 770, although it doesn't seem like they need it, things are bad for buying graphics cards.best regards
-
how much is that 980? it should go over 1500, that's not an OC model, it must be an oceada, anyway it seems that the 980 performs well with OC.
let's see if I see one for less than 300€, let's see if they release a refresh like the 770, although it doesn't seem like they need it, things are bad for buying graphics.regards
It's a GTX 980 G1 Fjavi…. It's the same as the review they did..
PS: I want to change my graphics card too, but I'm not willing to pay +300€ for anything, at that price it's complicated to find something that justifies leaving the old GTX 680
-
It's a GTX 980 G1 Fjavi…. It's the same as the review they did..
PS: I want to change my graphics card too, but I'm not willing to pay +300€ for anything, for that price it's complicated to find something that justifies leaving the old GTX 680
Well, I assure you that the GTX 980 is much faster (mostly because I've gone through a GTX 670, 770 and the 970, and the last jump was quite noticeable), with clarity as well.
Another matter is that this change isn't worth the +300€, which is a personal thing, but I don't see much need to change compulsively either (although I've made the changes before, in no case was it for real "need" but rather for the desire to tinker and see how things were improving, sometimes with the attraction of getting games that I had earmarked anyway, as is the case with the GTX 770).
-
Man, I assure you that the GTX 980 is much faster (mostly because I've gone through a GTX 670, 770 and the 970, and the last jump was noticeable, quite a bit), with clarity as well.
Another matter is that this change isn't worth the +300€ for you, that's a personal thing, but I don't see much need to compulsively change either (although I've made the changes before, in no case was it for real "need" but for the desire to tinker and see how things were improving, sometimes with the attraction of getting games that I had earmarked anyway, like with the GTX 770).
The point is, do you need to change. A while ago I stopped buying and buying with every release, new model or things like that. I stopped at the GTX 680 because it simply responds well to 1080p@60Fps in a large part of the games, leaving out the frame-eating machines already known like Crysis 3, MetroLL/2033 with their absurd and heavy features… Everything goes like silk. But, every now and then the itch gets in and I have to throw the card away to avoid problems with my partner jajajaja
Look at the SOM with its maximum quality + FXAA Only at 1080p. I don't know where the benchtool gets those minimum frames from, I don't see them at any point during the test.
-
For me, if it's something personal, I wouldn't pay much more than 300€ for a GM204, because it's a mid-range product and that's what it should cost.
I don't dispute that it's a good graphics card, that it performs well and goes up, but I refuse to collaborate in the price increase of graphics cards from recent years.
It's my way of protesting, not buying at any price.regards
-
For me, it is something personal not to pay much more than 300€ for a GM204, because it is a mid-range and that is what it should be worth.
If I don't argue that it is good graphics, that it performs well and goes up but that I refuse to collaborate in the increase in prices of graphics cards in recent years.
It is the way I have to protest, not to buy at any price.regards
In the last change I made I was stupid, a little bit. jejejeje I went from SLi GTX 460 to GTX 680, well, I gained less consumption, new technology and such. But the performance was the same, the GTX 460 cost me 308€ or something like that, the GTX 680 cost me almost 600€… Look at the price difference. I don't fall into the trap again, I'm not 20 years old anymore jajajajaja If I find a GTX 680 at a good price, about 120€, I prefer SLI than to spend another fortune on a GTX 980Ti or something below.
Not to mention that when I went into the stores, at that time a graphics card cost 150$ in the USA and 150€ here in Spain, now... 150$ there become 200€ here.
-
The GTX 980, even though it's a media.Es product, is absolutely perfect in every way.
Incredible performance, low power consumption for what it gives, amazing overclocking.
The only thing that stands out is its price.
If that graphics card cost around 400, at most 450€, it would have no rival.
At 4K it defends itself in a great way.
Anyone, which I know is difficult, but not impossible. Who has or has had a GTX 980 (even more so if it's a good model like G1, stryx etc.) and a Fury with or without X. Knows that the real difference in performance is practically zero between one and the other.
If it's resolutions of 1080p and 2K, which is really what this graphics card is designed for, the GTX 980 takes the cake without any palliatives. And at 4K it holds its own perfectly against the Fury without X. And if we overclock it, which is logical given that potential there. It does so without any problem against the X.De anyway, with only 4GB of VRAM available, neither is suitable for 4K.
It's tough for AMD, and I think for everyone, but in the end after so much waiting and so much history of HBMs, web smoke and so on.. certainly the only thing they have managed to bring out is a product closer to what NVIDIA already had on the market many months ago, consuming clearly much more, with the same GB of VRAM, much more expensive and on top with the "handicap" of their drivers.
Personally, I have continued to prefer to bet on the GTX 980s, rather than the fury… better a bad known than a good one to know. I speak for the second team. The TITANES X and 980 TIs with modded bios are out of that equation.
Although I imagine that sooner or later (more likely later as unfortunately tends to be usual in AMD) the fury will be unmasked and achieve a performance more in line with what is expected. Especially at standard resolutions of 1080p and 2K. Because really there is the bulk of buyers and in those resolutions they have a very clear problem. And a very big one at that.
Regards.
