Three years, really ? I'd be surprised if it even took a year for any serious gamer in to 4k not to have 2 980ti's or similar setup in regards to video memory. From what I understand, the pressure is on the big boys to actually produce a monitor that can handle the demands.
Sold my Titan Blacks..
- Thread starter AlienALX
- Start date
Three years, really ? I'd be surprised if it even took a year for any serious gamer in to 4k not to have 2 980ti's or similar setup in regards to video memory. From what I understand, the pressure is on the big boys to actually produce a monitor that can handle the demands.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It's not AMD that needs to unlock anything. It's already unlocked. There is no voltage limit etc that people are whining about. It's really p****** me off people keep bringing this up(not aimed at you). If you use google you could easily find out that the person who nearly creates the backbone of all the 3rd party OC'ing software, didn't get any Fury X samples at launch, which means he was not able to get the software and etc to recognize the fully unlocked portions and allow users to push the card. He even said so himself, you need the card in order to test it in order to update the software. Which is why currently nearly everyone is hitting the same stopping point, especially with HBM as most people can't go over 600mhz. Because they are only being limited with limited software.. He creates the backbone for AB, Sapphire OC suite, and AsusTweak for AMD cards. None of them currently have had updates for Fiji/Fury.
There is a reason to get the Fury X. You can get two for hardly more than a single TX. That's a step forward not back. It's nearly the same as a stock 980ti, which is true. Once the software gets updated we will then see how it performs in OC vs OC.
I wouldn't use a 980ti even if it was handed to me for free. I'd sell it to get another Fury X! And no this isn't fanboy talking either, it's really just the truth. AMD performs great at 4k and this card is a 4k card, it makes sense to get it for 4k.
Last edited by a moderator:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Most of Steam's user base have not even switched to 1080p yet.
And NBD I completely agree. This whole launch was rushed to heck,now we just gotta wait basically...
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
It was rushed.. but they needed to tbh. They need some kinda money flowing in and not out. The yield issues aren't even with HBM.. i'm pretty sure its the interposer. Its so big that they over maxed out the node size limit and only 80% of it actually has traces/etc while the rest is just allowing everything to place on top of it.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I never said anything about people switching to 4K.
The Fury X loses out quite heavily based on the benchmarks I've seen run by many in the 1080P and 1440P arena and that's where it matters most currently.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Indeed, because it's a 4k card. I mean pure, 100% solely designed to be nothing but a 4k card. And I feel that's AMD for you.. Innovating as usual but making white elephant products for the minority.
If you ran a server/VMware/encoding/archiving the Bulldozer was actually about as quick as the 2600k yet far cheaper. The Visheras were quicker still. Yet the problem is not many people use those apps/proggys so they were basically measured on their single core performance and pretty much up to 4 core performance in games, where they sucked. But AMD had a vision to put in lots of cores that weren't yet supported.
They also did the same with 64 bit CPUs, when Intel balked at them. Again they didn't sell very well but look around you now, every one is 64 bit.
And I feel that sadly Fury X is more of the same. They chose a specific memory type which is only really useful at 4k, for a card designed to run at 4k, even though hardly any one is using 4k so that means hardly any one will buy Fury X.
Into the future we will all be using HBM and we will all eventually be running 4k. It's just not something the masses are going to buy right now.
1440p performance though is 7% behind the 980ti and that's only like that because of Dying Light being so poor on the AMD. HardwareCanucks reckon that it would again be less than 1% if it wasn't for Dying Light.
Drivers dude. AMD have always pulled a rabbit out of the hat with drivers. When Doom 3 first launched my FX 5900 Ultra was quicker than a 9800 Pro. But even back in those days AMD came along with a driver that made the 9800 Pro kick the Nvidia's ass, same went for HL2.
The 7970 driver thing was another classic example. AMD literally made the card beat the GTX 580 at launch, then later on actually made it beat the GTX 680 just with a driver.
Everything about Fury X screams rushed. No cards, no stock, no samples for people who make the overclocking tools.. Hell, even Tom had to send his card on to another reviewer. Rushed drivers, no overclocking.... But at 4k it's already a very, very good card. And that's good enough for me given I'm on 4k.
In all honesty if I ever decide to ditch 4k I will ditch PC gaming completely and go to a PS4. There's really no point bothering with a PC for 1080p any more IMO. The graphics boost at 1080p simply isn't worth the outlay.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
IF they can unlock the voltage control *The guys behind AB etc... like NBD said* then I will consider getting one as then performance will go up quite a ways 
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
To be completely fair. Synthetic benchmarks aren't really a useful comparison tool between AMD and Nvidia.. why? Well because they have pretty much always run better on Nvidia.. Who knows why but it makes it seem like less powerful Nvidia cards are better than AMDs higher ones even if they perform better in games. Just my take on it. I feel like synthetic benchmarks are useful for comparing between same architectures and the scaling in hardware. Unless your not talking about synthetics which makes my previous text irrelevant
IF they can unlock the voltage control *The guys behind AB etc... like NBD said* then I will consider getting one as then performance will go up quite a ways
At least someone read that
lolI'm interested in to seeing how much we can get out of it. Some benchmarks with core at stock and increasing HBM only to see the improvements. Maybe trying that with GDDR5 on a similar performing card would interesting too see
I still and probably will forever struggle to get 50+ fps on Crysis Warhead with everything maxed out. Only if I had 2 980ti's, a decent monitor and a cable that could link it all...
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Well AMD had that slogan pre-release "Hunting Titans" so at least in my mind I was expecting something on par.
Performance is still awesome though and I still really want one purely for the aesthetics, Nuts I know ^_^
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Dicey I love you hehe but you just are not right you nutterand Vaulty you should of got the air cooled version of the fury slap a waterblock on it and Bob's yer Aunties live in lover
That is true and now I feel loved ^_^
But seeing as we are extremely close to proper voltage control it should get interesting soon
barnsley
born in a.....
Nice SLI badge
Would you be able to fit more than one card in the case or are you restricted rad wise?
AlienALX
Well-known member
Nice SLI badge
Would you be able to fit more than one card in the case or are you restricted rad wise?
I can fit another one in the centre. If you take a look at this pic.
There are three 120mm fans.. I should be able to use the mid one, but my computer didn't include it so I don't have the bracket needed. I would have to make one (got plenty of acrylic here).
I've been benching the Fury X and it pees on my Titans at 4k.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
I can fit another one in the centre. If you take a look at this pic.
There are three 120mm fans.. I should be able to use the mid one, but my computer didn't include it so I don't have the bracket needed. I would have to make one (got plenty of acrylic here).
I've been benching the Fury X and it pees on my Titans at 4k.
The Titan Blacks were always good 1440/1600P cards, Never really meant for 4K.
I hope OCUK get some good stock of the Fury X soon, Wouldn't mind getting one to play with, In DX11 it's easily beaten by the 980 Ti/TX at all resolutions BUT apparently it will have a big edge in DX12
The Titan Blacks were always good 1440/1600P cards, Never really meant for 4K.
I hope OCUK get some good stock of the Fury X soon, Wouldn't mind getting one to play with, In DX11 it's easily beaten by the 980 Ti/TX at all resolutions BUT apparently it will have a big edge in DX12
AFAIK Nvid support more of the DX12 modules than AMD do - Neither have full blanket support of everything
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Interesting, It will be good to finally see proper DX12 performance considering AMD have been touting their Async Shaders for DX12.
