PowerColor Radeon RX 5600 XT Red Dragon review
GALAX HOF Pro PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
AMD Announces Radeon R9 Fury Graphics Card
AMD officially announces the non X model of the Radeon R9 Fury Graphics Card. The card has a Fiji Pro GPU. Today is the announcement of the 2nd fastest Fiji GPU . Only two partners will make the card, Sapphire and ASUS.
Radeon R9 Fury uses the Fiji Pro GPU, and it is literally a beast as it is still based on a 28nm fabrication node, that means a chip just over the size of 5 x 5cm. There's lots of good stuff going on inside that chip as, the memory you guys all know as GDDR5 typically has been seated on the graphics card PCB. Well, with the Radeon R9 Fury that has changed. AMD has made a bold move to HBM memory (we'll talk about it over the next pages), the 4 GB of memory now is seated onto the actual GPU (chip).
| Radeon R9 Fury X | Radeon R9 Fury | Radeon R9 390X | |
| Fabrication Process | 28nm | 28nm | 28nm |
| GPU | Fiji | Fiji | Hawaii / Grenada |
| Streaming Processors | 4096 | 3584 | 2816 |
| Graphics memory | 4 GB HBM | 4 GB HBM | 8 GB GDDR5 |
| Memory Clock | up-to 500 MHz / 1.0 Gbps | up-to 500 MHz / 1.0 Gbps | 6.0 Gbps |
| Core Clock | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory Bandwidth | up-to 512 GB/s | up-to 512 GB/s | 384 GB/s |
| Power Connectors | 2 x 8-pin | 2 x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin - 1 x 8-pin |
| Form Factor | Full Height, Dual slot | Full Height, Dual slot | Full Height, Dual slot |
| Freesync | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| DirectX 12 Support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
So, try to comprehend this, the Fiji Xt GPU has 8.9 Billion transistors, and that is EXCLUDING the HBM memory chips, I know..! crazy figures right? To be able to fit all that on 28nm, well it's impressive to say the least. The GPU itself (and we'll talk in detail about it on the following pages) is based on GCN 1.2 architecture and then scaled upwards, the Fiji pro products will have 3584 shader processors whereas that is 4096 shader processors for the X model. The end result is a product with 7.2 TFLOPS of compute performance offering nice game performance in the more difficult and complex to render situations like Ultra HD gaming. As stated the product comes with a Fiji pro GPU that is a cut-down Fiji XT chip with 56 compute units and thus 3584 stream processors, 64 Raster operation units and 224 texture mapping units. The base clock for the reference AMD Radeon R9 Fury is 1000 MHz. The card chunks out 7.2 TFlops of compute performance. The card obviously has 4GB of HBM memory left in-tact at 500 MHz / 1.0 Gbps (effective data rate).
You will notice that the ASUS card has a DVI connector, if you look closer you'll see it is a single link one, so basically that is just a converted HDMI -> DVI with a max res of 1920x1080. The cards are expected to cost 549 USD.
We will have a review for you guys next week as our sample has not arrived just yet.
AMD Announces Kaveri Mobile APU for Notebooks FX APU - 06/04/2014 07:45 AM
AMD introduced its new 2014 Performance Mobile APUs designed for ultrathin and high-performance mobile PCs, bringing the features and capabilities of the popular and powerful AMD A-Series APU family (...
AMD Announces ARM-Based Server CPU and Development Platform - 01/29/2014 08:58 AM
AMD today added a major new milestone to its list of seminal developments in server technology. The company displayed a comprehensive development platform for its first 64-bit ARM-based server CPU, fa...
AMD announces cashback promotion for EU - 06/22/2012 09:08 AM
AMD has introduced a cashback programme for APU and FX processors. It's for several
AMD Announces A New 900MHz Radeon HD 7750 - 06/04/2012 06:23 PM
AMD has announced a new Radeon HD 7750. The new 7750, which will not be replacing the old 7750 yes is a higher clocked SKU. That also means its a
AMD announced new APUs - 12/21/2011 07:38 AM
We've mentioned them once or twice already in the past few weeks.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5119333 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:20 PM
It wasn't AMD's call. It is the board partners that made the decision to make them or not.
Hmm Makes me wonder why AMD only stuck with 2 partners with the non fury X cards? To me this is kind of weird.
It wasn't AMD's call. It is the board partners that made the decision to make them or not.
rm082e
Senior Member
Posts: 529
Joined: 2014-12-11
Senior Member
Posts: 529
Joined: 2014-12-11
#5119337 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:24 PM
Not to be rude, but isn't that a sign that something has gone terribly wrong?
It wasn't AMD's call. It is the board partners that made the decision to make them or not.
Not to be rude, but isn't that a sign that something has gone terribly wrong?
mcfart
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 2010-05-07
Senior Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 2010-05-07
#5119338 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:25 PM
The Fury will probably be the "value" card that people are looking for (until the Nano comes out), at least compared to the overpriced Fury X. The Fury has -50mhz on the core clock and missing some shader processers, but besides that it's the same as the Fury X (at least from what I saw). And -$100. If it's within 2-3FPS of the Fury X, then it should act like AMD's 980TI, where it's basically the same performance for less money.
If it's too much worse then the Fury X, or runs at 94c, then it will be another flub. Hopefully AMD get this one right.
Dunno, but maybe it has something to do with the low yields of HBM? AMD's bringing out the Fury in a week or something, aren't they? Even though they're having yield problems with the Fury X being sold out because of HBM.
The Fury will probably be the "value" card that people are looking for (until the Nano comes out), at least compared to the overpriced Fury X. The Fury has -50mhz on the core clock and missing some shader processers, but besides that it's the same as the Fury X (at least from what I saw). And -$100. If it's within 2-3FPS of the Fury X, then it should act like AMD's 980TI, where it's basically the same performance for less money.
If it's too much worse then the Fury X, or runs at 94c, then it will be another flub. Hopefully AMD get this one right.
Not to be rude, but isn't that a sign that something has gone terribly wrong?
Dunno, but maybe it has something to do with the low yields of HBM? AMD's bringing out the Fury in a week or something, aren't they? Even though they're having yield problems with the Fury X being sold out because of HBM.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5119339 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:28 PM
Hilbert, do you know what the TDP of this card is? I'm kinda curious to know how much that WC on the X effects the leakage. I've heard estimates as high as 30w.
Hilbert, do you know what the TDP of this card is? I'm kinda curious to know how much that WC on the X effects the leakage. I've heard estimates as high as 30w.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5119347 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:35 PM
275W (similar) as listed in the included specs image.
275W (similar) as listed in the included specs image.
Fender178
Senior Member
Posts: 3807
Joined: 2004-09-28
Senior Member
Posts: 3807
Joined: 2004-09-28
#5119349 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:37 PM
Oh Ok that makes sense. Thinks for the info boss.
It wasn't AMD's call. It is the board partners that made the decision to make them or not.
Oh Ok that makes sense. Thinks for the info boss.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5119351 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:38 PM
Hilbert regarding the no reviews part is seems Anandtech has a review of both cards already up...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus
If there´s a problem with the fact i linked the review page, just remove it please.
Hilbert regarding the no reviews part is seems Anandtech has a review of both cards already up...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus
If there´s a problem with the fact i linked the review page, just remove it please.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5119362 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:48 PM
The pictures at the bottom don't load for me =( -- I've been having a bunch of problems with the latest Win10 build & Chrome.
Anyway I find it interesting that the WCing on the Fury X effected the TDP so much.
275W (similar) as listed in the included specs image.
The pictures at the bottom don't load for me =( -- I've been having a bunch of problems with the latest Win10 build & Chrome.
Anyway I find it interesting that the WCing on the Fury X effected the TDP so much.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Joined: 2005-12-10
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Joined: 2005-12-10
#5119365 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:49 PM
Seems like an oc 980 can catch this card. Wonder how a 980 at 1500 would fare with an oc fury?
Seems like an oc 980 can catch this card. Wonder how a 980 at 1500 would fare with an oc fury?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36843
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5119368 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:54 PM
Hilbert regarding the no reviews part is seems Anandtech has a review of both cards already up...
If there´s a problem with the fact i linked the review page, just remove it please.
Yep, there is much confusion regarding the embargo's, Seems like AMD doesn't give a crap anymore. Anyway, our sample won't be in until Monday.
Hilbert regarding the no reviews part is seems Anandtech has a review of both cards already up...
If there´s a problem with the fact i linked the review page, just remove it please.
Yep, there is much confusion regarding the embargo's, Seems like AMD doesn't give a crap anymore. Anyway, our sample won't be in until Monday.
Rich_Guy
Senior Member
Posts: 12347
Joined: 2003-05-11
Senior Member
Posts: 12347
Joined: 2003-05-11
#5119371 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:56 PM
Loads of reviews out, X is redundant now, this is the one to get get.
Loads of reviews out, X is redundant now, this is the one to get get.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5119372 Posted on: 07/10/2015 02:57 PM
They guys at Anadtech wrote that the cards are only to go on sale on the 14th but that the embargo is lifted today. Maybe that´s the reason this happened, somebody must have confused the dates...
Yep, there is much confusion regarding the embargo's, Seems like AMD doesn't give a crap anymore. Anyway, our sample won't be in until Monday.
They guys at Anadtech wrote that the cards are only to go on sale on the 14th but that the embargo is lifted today. Maybe that´s the reason this happened, somebody must have confused the dates...
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7757
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7757
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5119379 Posted on: 07/10/2015 03:07 PM
Yep just glanced at the review on Anandtech and seriously what the hell is going on here?
The Fury is only like 2-4fps slower in games like BF4, Crysis 3, and FC4!???
This makes no sense, the Fury X has 4096 stream processors, higher ROP's, Higher texture units, higher clock speed, basically higher everything (yes some are only slightly higher).
The Fury X should on paper be at least 10fps more in almost every game but it simply isn't.
Could this be driver related? API related? Will DX12 really make these cards shine?
Loads of reviews out, X is redundant now, this is the one to get get.
Yep just glanced at the review on Anandtech and seriously what the hell is going on here?
The Fury is only like 2-4fps slower in games like BF4, Crysis 3, and FC4!???
This makes no sense, the Fury X has 4096 stream processors, higher ROP's, Higher texture units, higher clock speed, basically higher everything (yes some are only slightly higher).
The Fury X should on paper be at least 10fps more in almost every game but it simply isn't.
Could this be driver related? API related? Will DX12 really make these cards shine?
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12508
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5119381 Posted on: 07/10/2015 03:11 PM
Yep just glanced at the review on Anandtech and seriously what the hell is going on here?
The Fury is only like 2-4fps slower in games like BF4, Crysis 3, and FC4!???
This makes no sense, the Fury X has 4096 stream processors, higher ROP's, Higher texture units, higher clock speed, basically higher everything (yes some are only slightly higher).
The Fury X should on paper be at least 10fps more in almost every game but it simply isn't.
Could this be driver related? API related? Will DX12 really make these cards shine?
The ROPs are the same and most people believe that the Fury X is held back by the ROP count. This basically just reinforces that. Also it only has 13% more shaders.
Yep just glanced at the review on Anandtech and seriously what the hell is going on here?
The Fury is only like 2-4fps slower in games like BF4, Crysis 3, and FC4!???
This makes no sense, the Fury X has 4096 stream processors, higher ROP's, Higher texture units, higher clock speed, basically higher everything (yes some are only slightly higher).
The Fury X should on paper be at least 10fps more in almost every game but it simply isn't.
Could this be driver related? API related? Will DX12 really make these cards shine?
The ROPs are the same and most people believe that the Fury X is held back by the ROP count. This basically just reinforces that. Also it only has 13% more shaders.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3807
Joined: 2004-09-28
Hmm Makes me wonder why AMD only stuck with 2 partners with the non fury X cards? To me this is kind of weird.