barnsley
born in a.....
It is AMD's own benching tests..
AMD R9 Fury X benchmarks leaked, Significantly Faster than the GTX 980Ti
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
MrKambo
New member
This man speaks so much sense!
But sometimes the urge to have the latest and greatest outweighs rational thinking
chrismjurd
New member
with that thinking you should work for the government..
why have one.. when you can have two for twice the price.
Dawelio
Active member
^ This!!!.... this is so much for me at the moment. I am so entrigged to pull the trigger on the EVGA 980Ti right now, like it's almost killing me not too.
But I'm trying to hold off for a potential price drop on it...
MrKambo
New member
Dawelio
Active member
What if I told you, the price will halve over the next year
JR
Dude, then I'll pull the trigger right now if that's where the road is leading at...
If that's true though, then I must have missunderstood or everyone has been speaking randomly about potential price drops on it due to AMD launching :huh:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
That's not cherry picking. That's just using marketing to it's fullest and skewing statistics. Cherry picking would be choosing specific games where it is known that they perform better and only releasing those numbers. Which they clearly didn't.
Not dropping the price would be self destructive. No one(excluding fanboys), would buy a card that's more expensive yet performs worse. And if you do. You have more money than sense. Can't make an argument for G-Sync.. AMD has FreeSync and it's cheaper and is pretty much equal. I don't see a reason to go nvidia and especially how they conducted themselves with the 970 issue and gameworks(just to be clear, i think gameworks is great as a SDK, it's just the intentions and how it's used that bothers me). The prices will drop about after a week or two at most from Fury's Launch. If it doesn't.. really shows how bad the gpu market is when they don't feel threatened by something better and people buy it anyway.
Honestly even before 300 series was announced, I couldn't fathom how people would buy a 970 over a 290/290x when they performed better and could easily be found cheaper. You got same performance with a 290 and better with a 290x and got a full 4GB of vram. Only argument you could make was power consumption, which let's face it, isn't a big deal since most people would buy a 1000watt psu just to be on the safe side and in smaller more compact rigs, a 550watt quality unit would suffice anyways.
Last edited:
Dawelio
Active member
I'm not argue or anything, but I do see and understand your point here... I don't understand myself either.
I just don't like the new line up from AMD to be honest here, don't know what it is, but I've sort of driven away from AMD... Plus that I'm already in the process of going with the 980Ti and ROG Swift, even though it may be more expensive.
Plus, I just don't see the theme of the new AMD line up working with my theme in my build... not really a solid point, but still though.
And I got an R9 290X Vapor-X and both the 970 and 980. And I'm not sure if the 290X was faulty or so, but it was quite loud and the leds on the back of the PCB, they just did my head in while going crazy with different workloads lol.
The 970 was a whining star in my opinion and the 980, that was just rock solid... but returned due to personal issues at that moment in time unfortunately.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Some of those benchmark numbers look off.
Considering a 980 Ti and Titan X are pretty close performance wise I did a benchmark of my own using Sleeping Dogs as I'm playing through it right now.
Here is the supposed average FPS with the Fury X and 980 Ti on Sleeping Dogs at 4K but with AA set to normal -
And here is my average FPS on a Titan X with the exact same settings at 4K -
Either the person who did these benchmarks is using a very low end CPU that is holding back the scores or the scores are simply made up.
I tested with both the older version of Sleeping Dogs and the Definitive version, The scores were roughly the same on both.
Considering a 980 Ti and Titan X are pretty close performance wise I did a benchmark of my own using Sleeping Dogs as I'm playing through it right now.
Here is the supposed average FPS with the Fury X and 980 Ti on Sleeping Dogs at 4K but with AA set to normal -
And here is my average FPS on a Titan X with the exact same settings at 4K -
Either the person who did these benchmarks is using a very low end CPU that is holding back the scores or the scores are simply made up.
I tested with both the older version of Sleeping Dogs and the Definitive version, The scores were roughly the same on both.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
There could be any number of reasons why the figures don't add up.
I mentioned before that benchmarks are incredibly hit and miss. For example I ran 3dmark Firestrike and over three runs I managed a difference of nearly 1200 points which is around 10% just by running it again a couple more times.
In Catzilla my scores are pathetic compared to other similar rigs..
I don't care if Fury beats Titan X or the 980ti I really don't. All I care about is the bottom line - price. And north of £500 is just an epic wee take.
As some one else mentioned; give it a year and they'll be half price.
I mentioned before that benchmarks are incredibly hit and miss. For example I ran 3dmark Firestrike and over three runs I managed a difference of nearly 1200 points which is around 10% just by running it again a couple more times.
In Catzilla my scores are pathetic compared to other similar rigs..
I don't care if Fury beats Titan X or the 980ti I really don't. All I care about is the bottom line - price. And north of £500 is just an epic wee take.
As some one else mentioned; give it a year and they'll be half price.
Jbo1234
New member
Some of those benchmark numbers look off.
Considering a 980 Ti and Titan X are pretty close performance wise I did a benchmark of my own using Sleeping Dogs as I'm playing through it right now.
Here is the supposed average FPS with the Fury X and 980 Ti on Sleeping Dogs at 4K but with AA set to normal -
And here is my average FPS on a Titan X with the exact same settings at 4K -
Either the person who did these benchmarks is using a very low end CPU that is holding back the scores or the scores are simply made up.
I tested with both the older version of Sleeping Dogs and the Definitive version, The scores were roughly the same on both.
I think AMD are making it up as those numbers are horrifically off. Also AMD have just pulled back their reserved Fury X for Kitguru to review over Kitguru being "too negative", aka factual.
Tripp
too many shrooms
factual my backside, he had a pop at AMD in the vid because they wouldn't press in a room.
BigDaddyKong
Active member
A significant bump over stock clocks, I was referring to the name of the 7970ghz, not so much the speed of the Fury cards.
Jbo1234
New member
What video?
However I still think AMD are making things up with these benchmarks as many Nvidia owners are coming back with much better results from games or Firestrike etc.
The_Governour
New member
All these rumors... are ONLY that untill we can see some real results from Tom´s Rig where all the tests are the same. We all know that both Nvidia and AMD allways exagerate their pre benchmarks...
No need to get your panties all wet just yet....
No need to get your panties all wet just yet....
barnsley
born in a.....
https://vimeo.com/130535984
Its a shame as they weren't nearly as bad as several other review sites. They only really lost their chance to get AMD's cards because of that video and one of their writers is incredibly anti AMD.
Its a manufacturer released benchmark set, when was that ever an accurate result?
Tripp
too many shrooms
haha got there before me thanks dude ^_^
Similar threads
