Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X OC

[watercooled]

As far as I know it's tomorrow, the 14th.

[law000]

As far as I know it's tomorrow, the 14th.

Thank you kind sir!
Hopefully the price will be competitive in the UK but its likely to be around £420 - £450

[golden_knight]

monster card ...love Sapphire solid cooling and performance.

[law000]

Thank you kind sir!
Hopefully the price will be competitive in the UK but its likely to be around £420 - £450

Yup £450 in UK!

[DeViLzzz]

In the benchmarks I don't think you listed the settings you used for different games and different resolutions and that is not good. As for this card I am not interested. I want my PhysX. Also I won't be buying a video card until 4K, 60 FPS steady, Ultra settings with PhysX on is affordable. I guess I will be waiting quite awhile.

[Biscuit]

I picked up a bargain 290X Vapor-X instead as I just need to swap down to a single card system. I'm gunna let HBM reach the mid range cards before I hop aboard.

[watercooled]

In the benchmarks I don't think you listed the settings you used for different games and different resolutions and that is not good. As for this card I am not interested. I want my PhysX. Also I won't be buying a video card until 4K, 60 FPS steady, Ultra settings with PhysX on is affordable. I guess I will be waiting quite awhile.

They do list the settings. http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...i-x-oc/?page=3

[sidsapcewalker]

Good showing generally. The tier down from the halo product has always been the most interest IMO.

I agree. You going to get it?

[Obie]

Good showing generally. The tier down from the halo product has always been the most interest IMO.

I fully agree with that although it's tricky as I remember when it was the 570 I had my eye on when the 580 was top but now there are the new 'tiers' so to speak :]

[watercooled]

I fully agree with that although it's tricky as I remember when it was the 570 I had my eye on when the 580 was top but now there are the new 'tiers' so to speak :]

It's mostly just a marketing thing - rather than give the halo product a bigger number, a different name is used instead. It makes it sound more flashy I guess, but there's not really a difference.

[Obie]

It's mostly just a marketing thing - rather than give the halo product a bigger number, a different name is used instead. It makes it sound more flashy I guess, but there's not really a difference.

Yeah I guess it makes sense from a business perspective. One difference I see is being able to charge much higher amounts than before for a flagship as their isn't a huge range in the 'halo' series vs 550,560,560ti,570,580 etc.

[watercooled]

It's not the first time we've seen flagships at similar price points, the 8800 Ultra was about $830 for example. Value for money typically drops off rapidly towards the top end.

Relative value goes up and down over time, e.g. a few reviewers considered the 5870, which was by far the fastest and most efficient GPU in existence on release, a tad expensive at £299. Now we're seeing flagships which are nowhere near as much of an improvement over their relative predecessors, and the ~£550 price points are considered good value.

Of course a lot of it has to do with the costs of manufacturing and less frequent die shrinks - now we have GPUs within a few mm2 of the max manufacturable size due to being on 28nm since early 2012 and the GPU manufacturers still trying to increase performance. Cost goes up far more than linearly with die size. Going back some years we saw even more frequent die shrinks with GPUs than CPUs, with half-nodes being commonplace to allow more rapid shrinks e.g. 90>80>65>55nm.

[Obie]

It's not the first time we've seen flagships at similar price points, the 8800 Ultra was about $830 for example. Value for money typically drops off rapidly towards the top end.

Relative value goes up and down over time, e.g. a few reviewers considered the 5870, which was by far the fastest and most efficient GPU in existence on release, a tad expensive at £299. Now we're seeing flagships which are nowhere near as much of an improvement over their relative predecessors, and the ~£550 price points are considered good value.

Of course a lot of it has to do with the costs of manufacturing and less frequent die shrinks - now we have GPUs within a few mm2 of the max manufacturable size due to being on 28nm since early 2012 and the GPU manufacturers still trying to increase performance. Cost goes up far more than linearly with die size. Going back some years we saw even more frequent die shrinks with GPUs than CPUs, with half-nodes being commonplace to allow more rapid shrinks e.g. 90>80>65>55nm.

Interesting, I kind of missed that era. Thanks.