AMD Ryzen 5 3600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Team Group T-Force 4133 MHz 16GB DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII HERO (Wi-fi) review
MSI MEG X570 Godlike review
Corsair NightSword RGB gaming mouse review
Corsair MP600 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD review
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER JetStream review
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER Gaming X TRIO 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: 1467
Joined: 2008-01-13
Senior Member
Posts: 1467
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: 2527
Joined: 2002-11-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2527
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: 1272
Joined: 2012-10-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1272
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..
kinggavin
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 2014-11-06
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 2014-11-06
#5098474 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:10 AM
when i had AMD card i was always getting problems with the drivers , one was when you install it used popup internet explorer and or cmd prompt and sometimes crash , on crossfire get an errors no crossfire bridge and i had youtube crashes when trying watch videos bug with flashplayer , and the catalyst conveter wouldnt install sometimes, nvidia ive never had any blue screen or problems and the nvidia control panel so much better and also nvidia have the drivers ready for every game with sli
when i had AMD card i was always getting problems with the drivers , one was when you install it used popup internet explorer and or cmd prompt and sometimes crash , on crossfire get an errors no crossfire bridge and i had youtube crashes when trying watch videos bug with flashplayer , and the catalyst conveter wouldnt install sometimes, nvidia ive never had any blue screen or problems and the nvidia control panel so much better and also nvidia have the drivers ready for every game with sli
Blackops_2
Senior Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 2011-07-12
Senior Member
Posts: 319
Joined: 2011-07-12
#5098476 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:13 AM
Fiji is 28nm..not 16nm
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).
Fiji is 28nm..not 16nm
serbicu
Senior Member
Posts: 1896
Joined: 2007-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 1896
Joined: 2007-10-20
#5098478 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:16 AM
Yeah, better performance and at almost half the price of a titan x.
And don't come with the TDP arguments.Real gamers don't care about that.
Yeah, better performance and at almost half the price of a titan x.
And don't come with the TDP arguments.Real gamers don't care about that.
designgears
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-06-17
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-06-17
#5098481 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:19 AM
This has been pretty much proven to be fake over at /r/pcmasterrace
This has been pretty much proven to be fake over at /r/pcmasterrace
6311
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 2014-08-11
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 2014-08-11
#5098485 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:22 AM
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
chismo
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2013-10-01
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 2013-10-01
#5098487 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:25 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).
I'm here to correct you. You are wrong. Still on 28nm. It's supposedly on GloFo SHP 28nm process vs TSCM 28nm but still 28nm.
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
Who cares would be my answer. I saw you ask (3 times) and have answered this exact question at PCPER. So you're not really here to be informed just to whine right? Spare us.
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).
I'm here to correct you. You are wrong.
Still on 28nm. It's supposedly on GloFo SHP 28nm process vs TSCM 28nm but still 28nm.
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
Who cares would be my answer. I saw you ask (3 times) and have answered this exact question at PCPER. So you're not really here to be informed just to whine right? Spare us.
kinggavin
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 2014-11-06
Senior Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 2014-11-06
#5098490 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:30 AM
i wish we got american prices here in uk , this fury x and 980 ti are $650 dollars in uk pounds thats £420 so why are the same cards here £600 thats like $900 we have pay for same card
i wish we got american prices here in uk , this fury x and 980 ti are $650 dollars in uk pounds thats £420 so why are the same cards here £600 thats like $900 we have pay for same card
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7615
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7615
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5098491 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:31 AM
Nope AMD is still using 28nm for the FURY X and all up coming 300 series GPU's. Why do you think AMD needs a water cooled FURY X?? Cause the chip is freaking HUGE and packs 4096 shader cores, 256 TMU's, and around 128 ROPS and is built on an interposer where the new HBM memory is stacked around the edges close to the GPU core. Which means heat only really comes from one place on the board also allowing them to make a much smaller GPU overall as they don't need extra VRM's and circuitry for GDDR5 memory chips.
16nm is nowhere near getting the right yields yet for either AMD or Nvidia.
AMD are rumored to be partnering with Samsung who has a working 16nm fab factory already up and running and it would just a matter of spinning their chips and getting constraints sorted then out to market.
Nvidia on the other hand will be using TSMC or Global Foundry who both at the moment has issues with 16nm. So Pascal might have more issues then we think.
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).
Nope AMD is still using 28nm for the FURY X and all up coming 300 series GPU's. Why do you think AMD needs a water cooled FURY X?? Cause the chip is freaking HUGE and packs 4096 shader cores, 256 TMU's, and around 128 ROPS and is built on an interposer where the new HBM memory is stacked around the edges close to the GPU core. Which means heat only really comes from one place on the board also allowing them to make a much smaller GPU overall as they don't need extra VRM's and circuitry for GDDR5 memory chips.
16nm is nowhere near getting the right yields yet for either AMD or Nvidia.
AMD are rumored to be partnering with Samsung who has a working 16nm fab factory already up and running and it would just a matter of spinning their chips and getting constraints sorted then out to market.
Nvidia on the other hand will be using TSMC or Global Foundry who both at the moment has issues with 16nm. So Pascal might have more issues then we think.
SetsunaFZero
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-04-10
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-04-10
#5098492 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:33 AM
u have no idea man, every game that is powered by nv is crippling amd performance, especially games that are developed with game works.
nv is also crippling Kepler performance with new drivers to promote sells of Maxwel gpu
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
u have no idea man, every game that is powered by nv is crippling amd performance, especially games that are developed with game works.
nv is also crippling Kepler performance with new drivers to promote sells of Maxwel gpu
Chillin
Senior Member
Posts: 6815
Joined: 2006-01-18
Senior Member
Posts: 6815
Joined: 2006-01-18
#5098494 Posted on: 06/17/2015 08:33 AM
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
Does this matter to 99.9% of the buyers of this card?
Of all the things AMD could leave off the feature list, everything you listed wouldn't be missed by almost anyone.
DO THIS HAVE HDMI 2.0A ?
do this have 18gbps Bandwidth ?
Is support 12BIT 4K color ?
Does this matter to 99.9% of the buyers of this card?
Of all the things AMD could leave off the feature list, everything you listed wouldn't be missed by almost anyone.
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