Samsung T7 Shield Portable 1TB USB SSD review
DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
EK-FC R9 Fury X a AMD Radeon R9 FURY (X) Full Cover water block
EK is showing a preliminary model of how they feel what liquid cooling should look like on the Radeon R9 Fury X with their EK-FC R9 Fury X water block.
There you go, first sneak peak:
- Will come with single-slot bracket included and in all four versions (but no CSQ this time)
- All five backplates available (black, nickel, red, blue, gold/yellow)
- Single-slot height compliant!
First batch will be ready and distributed worldwide before you will have your card in hands.
Spets
Senior Member
Posts: 3239
Joined: 2011-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3239
Joined: 2011-05-10
#5109518 Posted on: 06/28/2015 05:37 AM
Better when it counts? It's only comparable at 4K, it gets a beating anything under (1080p,1440p).
It would be an okay card if it was cheaper, but when it costs as much as a 980Ti and doesn't OC as well, it's not a decent card to buy at all.
Better when it counts? It's only comparable at 4K, it gets a beating anything under (1080p,1440p).
It would be an okay card if it was cheaper, but when it costs as much as a 980Ti and doesn't OC as well, it's not a decent card to buy at all.
LimitbreakOr
Senior Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 2015-04-02
Senior Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 2015-04-02
#5109776 Posted on: 06/28/2015 04:58 PM
well, unfortunately there are no games that we could run at 1080P that will push these cards hard enough to drop down below 40 fps. I'd really love to see the results of something like that, i would put my money on fury x. Anyhow, i agree about the price, this card should be 600$ max.
well, unfortunately there are no games that we could run at 1080P that will push these cards hard enough to drop down below 40 fps. I'd really love to see the results of something like that, i would put my money on fury x. Anyhow, i agree about the price, this card should be 600$ max.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22109
Joined: 2005-12-10
Senior Member
Posts: 22109
Joined: 2005-12-10
#5109792 Posted on: 06/28/2015 05:20 PM
Imo it should be 550. Except for the performance, the fury x is filled with a bunch of negatives. Need a water cooler, lame oc for water. Uses more power than 980ti, slightly slower, released late compared to faster 980ti and titanx. Slower than Nvidia's second fastest card, appears to be at its near max with stock voltage, needs a $100 adapter for overclock korean monitors, making it 100 more expensive than a 980ti, no hdmi 2.0 iirc. Probably runs hotter if it used the same cooling as nvidia cards. Adding many 980ti are capable of 100Mhz leaving a oc fury x in the dust.
Imo it should be 550. Except for the performance, the fury x is filled with a bunch of negatives. Need a water cooler, lame oc for water. Uses more power than 980ti, slightly slower, released late compared to faster 980ti and titanx. Slower than Nvidia's second fastest card, appears to be at its near max with stock voltage, needs a $100 adapter for overclock korean monitors, making it 100 more expensive than a 980ti, no hdmi 2.0 iirc. Probably runs hotter if it used the same cooling as nvidia cards. Adding many 980ti are capable of 100Mhz leaving a oc fury x in the dust.
eclap
Senior Member
Posts: 31495
Joined: 2005-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 31495
Joined: 2005-01-08
#5109793 Posted on: 06/28/2015 05:25 PM
It's not a good card right now, no matter how people want to spin it. It would be a good card if it came out before the 980ti or if it cost less than the 980ti. ATM, it's a bad card, beaten by 980ti, poor overclocker, needs water cooling, which makes it awkward for CFX, just 2nd best choice overall in it's bracket. Poor show AMD. I can't see a single positive here, not a single one. 980ti is simply a better card in all respects.
It's not a good card right now, no matter how people want to spin it. It would be a good card if it came out before the 980ti or if it cost less than the 980ti. ATM, it's a bad card, beaten by 980ti, poor overclocker, needs water cooling, which makes it awkward for CFX, just 2nd best choice overall in it's bracket. Poor show AMD. I can't see a single positive here, not a single one. 980ti is simply a better card in all respects.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 2015-04-02
Amd seems to be 6 months behind in the GPU party, if they had the fury X when the gtx 980 was released, things would look very different. The fact is that the Fury X is slightly better than the 980ti in complex situations like at 4k. if you look at the scores, you'll notice that the 980Ti is faster when the fps is above 60FPS and it is slower when the fps drops below 40FPS (when you really need performance).
Honestly people... look at the scores... the Fury X is better when it counts. The only reason i got the 980Ti is because i NEED DVI-D for my 120hz 1080p monitor that I use for multiplayer games, my 4k monitor has too much input lag for a competitive situatuion and besides, i actually NEED more than 60FPS as opposed to most people who would be better off with a Fury X.
I am curious to know what the results are for 3dMark FireStrike Ultra with both the cards overclocked with voltage, I have a feeling that a lot of people would be suprised.