AMD Fury and Fury X Prices announced

WYP

News Guru
AMD's Radeon Fury and Fury X GPUs have been announced, and with prices of $549 and $649 Nvidia might soon be on the losing side.

16132130126l.jpg


You can read more on the AMD R9 Fury GPU here.
 
Im surprised at some of the secrets they kept, really looking forward to the reviews now
 
It looks nice, AMD could actually pull it. Good job, let's see how they do now because I really like the full power graphics card in a small package.
 
The price is excellent, in my opinion. If the Fury X can compete with a NON-reference 980ti, it will be the cheaper option. I'm interested to see how the UK/EU pricing is going to be, but if it's the same as nVidia's, the Fury X will be £600. That's high, but still highly competitive when you factor in the price premium for non-reference designs.

Although, for some reason, cards like the G1 Gaming 980ti are only £30 more than the Gigabyte reference 980ti. Is it me or is that out of the ordinary? Is it because the reference design is in such high demand? From what I remember, in the past, a G1 Gaming model would be £50+ easily over the reference design. And the Classified and Hybrid from eVGA are only £50 more than the reference design, which is even weirder. Normally those are extremely high in price and come with a £100 premium over the reference.

Apart from the really bad jokes and awkwardness, I was pleased with the announcement stream. It was quite exciting. I'm glad to see AMD bringing home the goods with confidence. If the leaked benchmarks are anything to go by, AMD are really being competitive and smart.
 
Looks like good pricing, but still need to see key figures e.g. temps, benchmarks, and OC potential. Glad to see it isn't $1000 though.
 
I think AMD might have just nailed it, if the benchmarks we've seen are correct then AMD have just released a Titan X killer for $150 less.

I'm impressed!
 
Not a chance lol

12gb is 12gb

http://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...gpu-show-nvidia-titan-x-rivaling-performance/

amd-radeon-fury-x-3dmark-firestrike-640x640.jpg


As for the results of the benchmarks, first we have the FireStrike Extreme test, which tests cards in 1440p resolution. Here, a single AMD Radeon Fury X scored 7,878, while the Titan X slightly edged it out with a score of 7,989. Moving to the 4K test, which 3DMark calls Firestrike Ultra, AMD’s card gets the nod slightly with a score of 3,960 while NVIDIA’s card achieved 3,862. They are extremely close in all of the tests, and the real world performance differences should be quite small.

OK maybe Titan X killer is a bit extreme, but you're still getting Titan X performance for $150 less.

It's a direct competitor for the 980Ti pricewise but beats the stock clocked Ti. Looking forward to seeing how well it overclocks and whether it can beat an overclocked Ti.
 
Last edited:
I called BS on them 'Benchmarks' the other day and I still call BS.
The scores don't tally with what is on the 3DMark hall of fame.
 
Looking forward to seeing how well it overclocks and whether it can beat an overclocked Ti.

AMD's Joe Macri did mention that the card is 275w TDP and the AIO is rated at 500w TDP...so that should give the Fury x a healthy margin for overclocking.
 
Nice to see AMD bring something to the table.

I've decided to postpone my gpu upgrade for a few weeks until the dust settles and the news has gone of the boil. I'm still swaying towards Nvidia 980ti's due to the SLI support, but if news starts coming through of improved Crossfire support I could be swayed in the other direction.

Shame it's only 4GB though, if feel 6GB is a minimum for that kind of investment.
 
12GB with low bandwidth is also 12GB with low bandwidth;)

4GB with high bandwidth and lower latency is also 4GB with high bandwidth and lower latency.. you won't need as much vram;)

The memory on a TX works very well indeed and I don't expect the Fiji cards to be any better when I get around to benching them.:)

AMD's Joe Macri did mention that the card is 275w TDP and the AIO is rated at 500w TDP...so that should give the Fury x a healthy margin for overclocking.

My custom water loop is good for about 4000w but it makes very little difference to the overclockability of components.
 
Last edited:
The memory on a TX works very well indeed and I don't expect the Fiji cards to be any better when I get around to benching them.:)

You weren't arguing if it works or not.. You argued over the amount they had. We already know it works.. GDDR5 has worked since the first GPU has used them lol
Fiji can do more with less, that was my point. HBM is the better technology hands down and I don't expect to see the current 4GB limit as an issue.
 
Considering they have designed the card from the beginning to be 4k and 5k, Ultra settings, min 60fps gaming ready. They even mentioned 3 x 1440p monitors...
Surely if 4GB HBM1 was going to be a problem delivering this then they would have waited for HBM2?
 
You weren't arguing if it works or not.. You argued over the amount they had. We already know it works.. GDDR5 has worked since the first GPU has used them lol
Fiji can do more with less, that was my point. HBM is the better technology hands down and I don't expect to see the current 4GB limit as an issue.

Sorry but 4gb is 4gb

Unless AMD want to re write every game in existence to use memory in a difference way.
 
Sorry but 4gb is 4gb

Unless AMD want to re write every game in existence to use memory in a difference way.

Don't need to. Otherwise HBM wouldn't exist if that was the case. Games are memory bandwidth starved.. not memory limited. CPUs and GPUs will always require more and more bandwidth as computation tasks increase. It's not the other way around, if it was we would be in a much different world where phones would have 16GB of memory...
 
Back
Top