NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Now that makes more sense
1440p should be fine with a 380. I don't struggle with a less powerful 7950 at max settings with 1080p in my games so it should do fine, especially with some OC'ing
AMD Fury and Fury X Prices announced
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Now that makes more sense
1440p should be fine with a 380. I don't struggle with a less powerful 7950 at max settings with 1080p in my games so it should do fine, especially with some OC'ing
AlienALX
Well-known member
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Nano_CrossFire/
Seems my hunch was correct, look at those Nano/FuryX Crossfire results at 4k !
Do want. Do really, really want. But not paying stupid prices.
Seems my hunch was correct, look at those Nano/FuryX Crossfire results at 4k !
Do want. Do really, really want. But not paying stupid prices.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
The PCARS results look a little funky on the AMD side to me.
The Fury X is a maHOOsive 30FPS behind a 980 Ti at 1440P even behind the 780 Ti and 970 and around the same for Wolfenstein and WoW too being behind a 970 and 780 Ti
Shame AMD didn't opt in to be part of the development of those games.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, the Wolfenstein performance was my biggest gripe with AMD's cards. I still have my 970. I would actually get better performance with it than my Fury.The PCARS results look a little funky on the AMD side to me.
The Fury X is a maHOOsive 30FPS behind a 980 Ti at 1440P even behind the 780 Ti and 970 and around the same for Wolfenstein and WoW too being behind a 970 and 780 Ti
Shame AMD didn't opt in to be part of the development of those games.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, so would I. But not my one. My one won't overclock at all. It's atrocious. Still, I like the card. I feel like it would have been such an awesome option if it were $50 cheaper. Unless you intended on heavily overclocking a 980 or had a G-Sync panel, I wouldn't see a reason to chose the 980 over the Fury. Frame times are supposedly better with nVidia, but I don't think it's a deal breaker.Would still take a Fury over the 970 any day
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, it's a shame, but at least the performance increase would never be that high anyway, even if it could hit what everyone else was hitting. It just would have been nice to get an extra 5 frames in GTA V, which is pretty much the only game I'm interested in that needs it. I can't get anywhere near max settings in GTA V at 1440p. With everything at the max settings, it's one of the most demanding games to play. An overclocked 980ti struggles to get consistent 60 FPS at 1080p, but that's usually over grassy areas. With a few unnecessary settings turned down, I can hit 70-80 FPS most of the time, with 55-65 being my range when in demanding areas/situations.
I have been tempted by XFire Fury, but it's not happening. I think I can be happy with the performance until Arctic Islands. Besides, the last two games released that I'm interested in—Phantom Pain and Mad Max—are really easy to run and work well with AMD and nVidia at 1440p. Tomb Raider, SoM, Splinter Cell Blacklist, Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect 3, Mad Max, Metal Gear Solid, Dishonoured, Borderlands 2, Arkham Origins, AC Black Flag, Far Cry 4, Hitman Absolution, Just Cause 2, Mafia II, PAYDAY 2, Sniper Elite, BF3/4, Call of Duty, Watch Dogs, The Witcher 2. So many games I haven't played yet that run fine at 1440p with a Fury. The only exceptions are GTA V, The Witcher 3, Wolfenstein, AC Unity, and Crysis 3, four of which are regarded to be the most demanding video games available, irrelevant of what GPU you have.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
The only games there that I've completed are Mass Effect 3, Mad Max *Literally in 3 sittings, Love that game*, Shadow of Mordor, Batman Arkham Origins and that's it, I've got a huge library on Steam, Uplay, Origin and GOG and I think I've only completed maybe 1% ^_^
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Looking at the Nano and Fury X along with the Xfire results, I noticed on there testing, Nano=Fury(non-x) and Fury X trades blows with the TX or is tied with 980ti on nearly every test. Haven't seen that before(FX=TX that is). On the other hand the Xfire results were really impressive. 90% scaling in Frostbyte 3 games and better in some other games(Witcher 3 iirc was the main one that author said). I thought it was cool that the drivers didn't care that a Nano+Fury X in xfire didn't effect it negatively and was about 3% faster than the Nano+Nano config. Think I only saw 3 games that did worse with Xfire. That's expected though. Some games just don't like it.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Ha! Yep, same. I only have a couple of games on Uplay and Origin, but I have over 200 on Steam that will take me many years to play. Many of them are Indie games that don't need a dedicated GPU to run. I'm always thinking, can I play tomorrow's game with my setup? When tomorrow inevitably comes, I'm still too busy playing catchup on older games.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
