Corsair M65 RGB Ultra mouse review
Asus ROG STRIX XG43UQ monitor review
Netduma R2 router review
TerraMaster F5-422 NAS Review
Radeon RX 6600 (Sapphire Pulse) review
Radeon RX 6600 (Gigabyte Eagle 8G) review
PowerColor Radeon RX 6900 XT Red Devil review
Corsair Sabre RGB Pro Wireless mouse review
Far Cry 6: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Colorful GeForce RTX 3060 Bilibili 12G review
Radeon Fury X Beats GeForce GTX Titan X and Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark
Well, at least to these leaked slides that just surfaced on the web. The tests are posted by Korean tech publication ITCM.co.kr. R9 Fury X score higher than the GTX Titan X in all three tests, while the R9 Fury is almost as fast as the GTX 980 Ti.
These benchmarks should be taken with a huge grain of salt of course, I think they are artificially calculated. I say so as the name in the charts seem to refer to DG Lee, famous for posting 'guestimated' results on the web claiming they are real. But hey .. have a peek and obviously as always, draw your own conclusions.
Source: ITCM (Korea)
3DMark Firemark Scores Radeon Fury X surfaces - but are they real ? - 06/11/2015 06:42 AM
The first benchmarks of the AMD Radeon Fury X “Fiji” GPU have been posted yesterday, today however FutureMark 3DMark Firestrike Scores appeared magically shortly thereafter. There are a few things odd about them though.
AMD Radeon Fury X beats Titan X in OpenCL - 06/10/2015 05:47 PM
So the funny thing about people as that once they have hardware, they test stuff and sometimes forget that the results of a benchmark are inserted into a database, which is publicly available. AMD Rad...
AMD unofficially confirms Radeon Flagship – R9 390X - Launches at Computex - 03/05/2015 07:41 PM
Over at GDC AMD did not announce the pending Radeon R9 390X flagship just yet as many had hoped - then again, they kind of did. The Fiji XT based monster was apparently powering the Showdown demo o...
Cartman372
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 2008-01-13
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 2008-01-13
#5098462 Posted on: 06/17/2015 07:45 AM
It's funny, AMD always gets **** on when the discussion of drivers come up. I ran my HD4850 for 6ish years and not once during that time frame did I have a driver related game issue. In fact the only problem I had with that card was the inadequate single slot cooler. Had to put on an Arctic Cooling unit at some point.
It's funny, AMD always gets **** on when the discussion of drivers come up. I ran my HD4850 for 6ish years and not once during that time frame did I have a driver related game issue. In fact the only problem I had with that card was the inadequate single slot cooler. Had to put on an Arctic Cooling unit at some point.
Atombender
Senior Member
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2002-11-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2002-11-08
#5098470 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:02 AM
Very interesting. Even at UHD the Fury X (with "only" 4GB HBM) is still sligthly faster than the Titan X with it's whopping 12 GB memory.
Very interesting. Even at UHD the Fury X (with "only" 4GB HBM) is still sligthly faster than the Titan X with it's whopping 12 GB memory.
Robbo9999
Senior Member
Posts: 1557
Joined: 2012-10-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1557
Joined: 2012-10-07
#5098471 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:03 AM
So the Fury X is on the next node of 16nm and Titan X/980ti is still 28nm, yet Fury X only narrowly beats the Titan X!? This means that once NVidia go to 16nm with Pascal then AMD will be obliterated! If the FuryX was on 28nm this would be a good achievement right, but the fact it's on 16nm, should be way better performance if they're gonna compete against NVidia. (Think I've got it right that FuryX is on 16nm - correct me if you know I'm wrong).
So the Fury X is on the next node of 16nm and Titan X/980ti is still 28nm, yet Fury X only narrowly beats the Titan X!? This means that once NVidia go to 16nm with Pascal then AMD will be obliterated! If the FuryX was on 28nm this would be a good achievement right, but the fact it's on 16nm, should be way better performance if they're gonna compete against NVidia. (Think I've got it right that FuryX is on 16nm - correct me if you know I'm wrong).
Blackops_2
Senior Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 2011-07-12
Senior Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 2011-07-12
#5098473 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:10 AM
Yup, my 4890 and 7970 never had any issues. Meanwhile i have two rigs with 780 Classies that are crashing at least twice a week now. But Nvidia sure does put out flawless drivers...
Both are stock, never been OCed. My point is it goes both ways.
Anyhow i hope the leaks are true and Fury is faster than Titan X so competition will ensue..
It's funny, AMD always gets **** on when the discussion of drivers come up. I ran my HD4850 for 6ish years and not once during that time frame did I have a driver related game issue. In fact the only problem I had with that card was the inadequate single slot cooler. Had to put on an Arctic Cooling unit at some point.
Yup, my 4890 and 7970 never had any issues. Meanwhile i have two rigs with 780 Classies that are crashing at least twice a week now. But Nvidia sure does put out flawless drivers...
Both are stock, never been OCed. My point is it goes both ways.
Anyhow i hope the leaks are true and Fury is faster than Titan X so competition will ensue..
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 2014-11-06
AMD cards are powerful but gpus are made for gaming and thats where amd problem is because nvidia has most of the games (ie) the physx and the gameworks if u want the fancy extras in your game u need nvidia card also nvidia have the better game driver support over amd , i think its main reason nvidia are on top and biggest problem for amd sales more games are optimized for nvidia got gameworks and better drivers