AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB

[HEXUS]

AMD back in the big league.

Read more.

[Jasp]

Well a tad underwhelming to say the least, was expecting it to tip the 980ti off the top spot which at the moment looks the better buy with HDMI 2 and Direct X 12.1. Maybe next year.

Also why no 390X results in the chart?

[Tarinder]

They were tested anachronistically - Fury X first - and the 390X would be the only non-reference card. I will however add it in.

[Jimbo75]

Well a tad underwhelming to say the least, was expecting it to tip the 980ti off the top spot which at the moment looks the better buy with HDMI 2 and Direct X 12.1. Maybe next year.

I agree it's underwhelming but I sorta knew it was heading for that last week so no great surprise.

If you really need HDMI 2 you can get an adapter. DirectX 12 is heavily based on Mantle - how can Nvidia cards be better equipped than AMD's for it? They don't even have asynchronous shaders which will be a mainstay of the API.

[Jasp]

They were tested anachronistically - Fury X first - and the 390X would be the only non-reference card. I will however add it in.

Ah different review embargoes cool.

I agree it's underwhelming but I sorta knew it was heading for that last week so no great surprise.

If you really need HDMI 2 you can get an adapter. DirectX 12 is heavily based on Mantle - how can Nvidia cards be better equipped than AMD's for it? They don't even have asynchronous shaders which will be a mainstay of the API.

From what i understand DX12 is built from the ground up by Microsoft, it basically does the same thing as Mantle but is not the same. What will be interesting is how this performs against the 980ti in DX12 as on paper the Fury should be quite a bit faster then it.

[Bagnaj97]

So the 980ti wins in every single benchmark at 1080p, that's a shame. The extra bandwidth from HBM pays off and the Fury X catches up as you crank the resolution, but I suspect the vast majority of gamers are still "only" on 1080p.

Any idea when we'll see pricing and reviews of the R9 Nano?

[Percy1983]

Maybe driver improvements and dx12 will boost it but I really was expecting more.

With that if the price is right for the performance in usual AMD style its not a disaster as such, would have been nice to have the top spot as a halo product.

[Tunnah]

Don't care about power usages or temp or any of that, it's just not something I notice. I care about performance, and if they're at a stalemate I'll go with nvidia because of superior driver support.

It looks like a stalemate so I'd choose the 980Ti. It's a shame because I really wanted them to do better. HBM sounded great, and the more competition, the harder a company has to push itself.

[watercooled]

Well a tad underwhelming to say the least, was expecting it to tip the 980ti off the top spot which at the moment looks the better buy with HDMI 2 and Direct X 12.1. Maybe next year.

There's no such thing as DirectX 12.1. Feature levels are arbitrary values, unimportant to end users and nothing to do with game compatibility.

[LSG501]

Price will be a major factor now I'd say, personally I'd still go nvidia over the fury x purely due to graphics ram and better dx support giving arguably a longer lifespan for a 'high end card'. I'd also class 4GB as the bare minimum for a high end card these days, the whole reason is to play at faster framerates and/or better quality so this could potentially be a limiting factor within a year.

[DanceswithUnix]

Would love to see how it compared to a pair of R9 380 cards in crossfire, as that comes in a bit cheaper, has nearly as many shaders, the same 4GB per gpu limit, but higher overall tdp (where I don't care about energy costs but would be fine with that if it meant the performance was better).

[[DW]Cougho]

A tad disappointing. I expected it to sit between the reference 980Ti and the vendor overclocked 980Ti's. It's not really any cheaper than the 980Ti either - only really relevant for AMD fans and Freesync monitor owners I'd say.

I really wanted this to do well too, I'm looking at upgrading my monitor alongside a graphics card upgrade and while the 980Ti would be my graphics card choice I don't fancy investing into G-Sync - I much prefer the Freesync standard.

[DanceswithUnix]

So the 980ti wins in every single benchmark at 1080p, that's a shame. The extra bandwidth from HBM pays off and the Fury X catches up as you crank the resolution, but I suspect the vast majority of gamers are still "only" on 1080p.

Any idea when we'll see pricing and reviews of the R9 Nano?

Do you think people who can drop half a grand on a video card as well as the high end CPU etc to drive it will have a single 1080p monitor?

[Jimbo75]

So the 980ti wins in every single benchmark at 1080p, that's a shame. The extra bandwidth from HBM pays off and the Fury X catches up as you crank the resolution, but I suspect the vast majority of gamers are still "only" on 1080p.

If you're gaming on 1080p with these you really ought to be upscaling with DSR/VSR which is basically the same thing.

[CustardInc]

I'd also class 4GB as the bare minimum for a high end card these days

4GB GDDR5 =/= 4GB HBM

[watercooled]

I'll just add this for 'DircxtX support' concerns: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/2...d-dont-deliver

Feature levels have always been there and never really marketed to end users before because they really don't matter. It's silly that it's been turned into a marketing bullet point TBH. AMD could easily argue the toss as GCN is a higher 'tier'.