Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 131

Thread: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

  1. #17
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,978
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,586 times in 1,341 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Charlie says the interposer is made by UMC on 65nm. Had forgotten they even existed

    http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/22/a...odd-bits-tech/

  2. #18
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked
    411 times in 217 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Yup, there's no need for a cutting-edge process for the interposer. Even at 65nm the wiring is far more intricate and complex than the traces out to G5.

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    780
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked
    49 times in 38 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Charlie says the interposer is made by UMC on 65nm. Had forgotten they even existed

    http://semiaccurate.com/2015/06/22/a...odd-bits-tech/
    UMC isn't actually that far off the big guys. They just don't have a huge amount of capacity but they have 14nm FF in the works.

  4. Received thanks from:

    DanceswithUnix (24-06-2015)

  5. #20
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,039
    Thanks
    3,910
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    AMD mucked this launch up IMHO. If there were driver optimisations to be had,they should have delayed the launch and if not they should have launched this at around £400 to £450.

    Even under £200 they simply just rejigged a cut down Tonga a bit,instead of launching a fully enabled one which would have given the GTX960 some better competition.

    I really hope for their sake,that they can launch their next generation GPUs on the process node before Nvidia does.

    The only redeeming feature for me is potentially their OpenCL support,and maybe some aspects of their DX12 support,but TBH I can see my still staying with Nvidia for my next upgrade!

  6. #21
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,978
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,586 times in 1,341 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarinder View Post
    Yup, there's no need for a cutting-edge process for the interposer. Even at 65nm the wiring is far more intricate and complex than the traces out to G5.
    I knew the interposer was going to be on old tech, though the 1011mm^2 bit is interesting if he got it right.

    I just assumed it would be a TSMC old line that was used, or possibly GloFo would have something kicking around.

  7. #22
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,978
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,586 times in 1,341 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    AMD mucked this launch up IMHO. If there were driver optimisations to be had,they should have delayed the launch and if not they should have launched this at around £400 to £450.

    Even under £200 they simply just rejigged a cut down Tonga a bit,instead of launching a fully enabled one which would have given the GTX960 some better competition.

    I really hope for their sake,that they can launch their next generation GPUs on the process node before Nvidia does.

    The only redeeming feature for me is potentially their OpenCL support,and maybe some aspects of their DX12 support,but TBH I can see my still staying with Nvidia for my next upgrade!
    Seeing what it can do with a 90MHz overclock, if they released it just 50MHz faster as stock it might have read quite differently in the review given how close some of the results were.

  8. #23
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Yeah the interposer is quite interesting IMO - 1011mm^2!!!

    I wonder roughly what it costs to make? Only the top metal layers, 65nm* and no transistors would give extremely high yields I imagine.

    *WRT that 65nm though - that's a number used to refer to the gate pitch but if there are no transistors I guess it's a bit of a misnomer, only using the 65nm back-end?

    Edit: Again WRT die size, I wonder if it's a special process they're using for interposers since I'd think 1011mm^2 would be way above the reticle size of a normal node? Even so, Charlie says they're only a few mm of the max. Even with greater memory support with switching or whatever, there might not have been room on the interposer!

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,891
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked
    61 times in 53 posts
    • jonathan_phang's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage III Extreme
      • CPU:
      • i7 930 @ 4.2 ghz (200x21)
      • Memory:
      • 12GB Corsair XMS3 1600
      • Storage:
      • Crucial M4 128GB SSD + Misc Data Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 1080 FTW
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850 Modular
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus PB278Q (27" 2560x1440)
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 100mb

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Good to see a review finally. Going to digest all the text a bit more later and take a wider view of other reviews (along with online pricing) before deciding between that and the 980ti. If for some reason (maybe later down the line) you needed to crossfire 2 of these, would the radiator footprint allow both to be attached to 2x the front intakes? If Hexus is able to have a closer look at the radiator then that would be appreciated.

  10. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    411
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    15 times in 11 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Both the Fury and 980ti are superb cards, more than capable of playing most games at high frame rates (ok maybe not totally at full 4K)

    Fury has real potential in a mini-itx system.

    It seems to me that AMD missed a big trick. Transpose the placement of the watercooling and power sockets would make (at least for me) a big improvement in tubing and cable runs.

    Sadly, it looks at moment if green team have the better card and less power use. But it is not by much and if AMD can produce a 6GB or 8Gb card the performance might be better.

    If buying tomorrow I would go green, by Xmas who knows?

  11. #26
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    The cooler is great, although the card right now is a bit of a poor performer for the cost. Might as well get a 980Ti for around the same price since they overclock FAR better.

    That being said, once voltage unlocks come for the fury, we might be able to overclock it so that it laughs at the 980Ti, in which case, its amazing value for money, being faster, cooler, quieter and cheaper than the 980Ti... we will have to wait and see I think though.

  12. #27
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • petrucius's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock AB350 Fatality GK4
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 1600X
      • Memory:
      • 2x8 GB G.SKILL Fortis
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit GTX 1080 GRP
      • PSU:
      • CM V700
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R4
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell P2715Q
      • Internet:
      • 300/300 FTTH A1

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    I expected more but it's still a beast GPU.
    I will definitely wait at least until Christmas to see what will happen with the prices.

  13. #28
    Team HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    75
    Thanked
    411 times in 217 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Seeing what it can do with a 90MHz overclock, if they released it just 50MHz faster as stock it might have read quite differently in the review given how close some of the results were.
    The innate problem is that AMD probably realised it could not win this round by a healthy margin. Getting 4,096 cores up to 1,100MHz-plus is no easy task, especially as the cooling is about as good as it's going to get. Even if it had, thereby diminishing the yields substantially, Nvidia could have come back with, say, a GTX 980 Ti-X - a fully core-enabled GPU clocked in at 1,100MHz core.

    The way I see it, the efficiencies of Maxwell have trumped the benefits of HBM and disadvantages of GCN... for this iteration of graphics cards at least.

  14. #29
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,039
    Thanks
    3,910
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Seeing what it can do with a 90MHz overclock, if they released it just 50MHz faster as stock it might have read quite differently in the review given how close some of the results were.
    AMD marketing and market research just comes across as half baked when compared to Nvidia in recent years.

    Seriously,are they that dumb?? What did they expect from reviews?? They should have dropped the price to £450 RPP with the current set of drivers,so it was not competing directly with the GTX980TI but more with the GTX980. Heck,even only release a limited quantity just for halo reasons if they don't make much money just to strengthen the brand.

    Or if there were driver improvements to be had,why launch now?? They should have launched it on the 14th of July FFS.

    Plus no voltage unlock on launch day. Seriously,WTF?? The GTX980TI cards are awesome overclockers.

    The only way I can see this as a positive is if the actually custom Fury cards are overclocking monsters and make the Fury X look redundant in some way,ie, a bit like the GTX980TI against the Titan X.

  15. #30
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    24
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Now is the best time to pick up a 295x2

  16. #31
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    @CAT: I agree it would be a crying shame if there's some untapped potential in driver improvements; release-day reviews count as we saw with the 290X cooler fail. The updated-driver reviews get far less attention, the GCN series in general still seems to be climbing up the performance charts lately compared to release but it's still the initial reviews people will go to.

    However I'm impressed with what they've done with power consumption, actual card power being below the 290X from the reviews I've seen so far. I guess I wasn't the only one half-expecting those power claims to be a bit on the optimistic side but they nailed it TBH. It seems they've also done some work on idle and multi-monitor consumption: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ra...w-33235-7.html

    Either way, this is a good pipecleaner for HBM for AMD - they're near-enough maxed out on both die and interposer size now so there's not much more they could have done hardware-wise without a uArch change or a die shrink. However they now have production experience with HBM so there's less risk than combining it with a new node etc.

  17. #32
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,857
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    872 times in 736 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

    Wow, I hope there is something wrong with those benchmarks......super-expensive RAM, water-cooler, 2x 8pin PCI-E connectors.....it should have been a beast but those benchmarks makes it look like a power-hungry flop.

    I'd happily take the same-priced, more efficient with more RAM 980Ti over the card with the fancy tech

    I can see them being discounted fast to sell them and I wonder where that leaves AMD after the cost of HBM and WC units for each card.....
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •