AMD Radeon R9 Fury X - Official Benchmarks

#5100629

Keesberenburg

2015-06-19 08:55

With a 100mhz oc on the fury x.

#5100636

Noisiv

2015-06-19 09:08

They chose settings anywhere between Medium and Ultra. 8 custom game settings used 🙂 AA going from 0 to 4xSSAA And Anisotropic Filtering going from 0 to 16, but mostly ZERO. In 2015. AF=0 !! http://abload.de/img/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x_myksy.png

#5100639

Keesberenburg

2015-06-19 09:13

Pro AMD benchmark love it, Nvidia does the same thing somtime if it's not fast enough

#5100643

Veteran

2015-06-19 09:17

If Hilbert is saying these are cherry picked and take witha grain of salt then I reckon the fury x is not as good as these benchies show. Its either equal to Ti in some games and below it in other games. That is my prediction. Titan will still beat it in all games.

#5100645

Asgardi

2015-06-19 09:29

Hmm...

If Hilbert is saying these are cherry picked and take witha grain of salt then I reckon the fury x is not as good as these benchies show. Its either equal to Ti in some games and below it in other games. That is my prediction. Titan will still beat it in all games.

I was waiting for something much more impressive since AMD claimed Fury X to be the "fastest GPU in the world". If these are true and AMDs own benchmarks it will probably not beat the TI, especially those models having 30 % factory overclock. But I will wait for the real benchmarks before judging. Btw, notice how games that take more than 4Gb memory in 4K are missing, including GTA V 😉

#5100647

Steppzor

2015-06-19 09:32

I was waiting for something much more impressive since AMD claimed Fury X to be the "fastest GPU in the world". If these are true and AMDs own benchmarks it will probably not beat the TI, especially those models having 30 % factory overclock. But I will wait for the real benchmarks before judging. Btw, notice how games that take more than 4Gb memory in 4K are missing, including GTA V 😉

Shadow of Mordor is in there. Isnt that one of the most VRAM intensive games out there?

#5100648

Fox2232

2015-06-19 09:33

I am pretty sure there are games where 980Ti does better. But looking at Bioshock Infinite where AMD's equivalent HW usually scores like 20% worse, and seeing it here at same level... And being better in Witcher 3 which is crippled on anything but maxwell... And it is true that 4k is nice, but this card alone is best for 1440p or higher refresh rate 1080p/21:9 screens. So lets calmly wait for Hilbert's test suite which is unbiased.

#5100650

Adil0n

2015-06-19 09:37

Dear HH, We need one of your OCD benchmarks about this, doubts, expectations and speculations are killing us!

#5100651

Cartman372

2015-06-19 09:37

If Hilbert is saying these are cherry picked and take witha grain of salt then I reckon the fury x is not as good as these benchies show. Its either equal to Ti in some games and below it in other games. That is my prediction. Titan will still beat it in all games.

The Titan also costs $400 more. I'd sure hope it outperforms something for that price...

#5100656

meth curd

2015-06-19 09:44

The Titan also costs $400 more. I'd sure hope it outperforms something for that price...

our wallets... ha-ha ...ha 🙁

#5100658

Megabiv

2015-06-19 09:48

This will be a direct competitor for the 980Ti in price/performance. The Titan X is very niche and already in direct competition with the far cheaper 980Ti (at least here in the UK its about £300 less). If the Fury X trades blows with the 980Ti then AMD have done themselves proud as far as I'm concerned, anything more is really bonus. Looking forward to the G3D review.

#5100665

Asgardi

2015-06-19 09:59

Hmm...

The Titan also costs $400 more. I'd sure hope it outperforms something for that price...

You are mixing Titan and Ti. Ti costs only $50-100 more than Fury X, and it doesnt have to. Nvidia is quite much free to do what ever they want with the price now that Fury is out. Cant wait to see what happens.

#5100669

moab600

2015-06-19 10:04

Don't trust any amd or nvidia in house benchmarks, we will see next week what it capable of, but i got the feeling it's not gonna be impressive, GM200 and 204 already impressed us well.

#5100670

Anarion

2015-06-19 10:06

Ouch... So cherry picked results are already that close. Pretty much any custom GTX 980 Ti is faster and you can squeeze out more by overclocking.

#5100673

Spets

2015-06-19 10:07

They chose settings anywhere between Medium and Ultra. 8 custom game settings used 🙂 AA going from 0 to 4xSSAA And Anisotropic Filtering going from 0 to 16, but mostly ZERO. In 2015. AF=0 !!

Wow, their in-house settings are a joke. Can't wait to compare these results with proper ones from reputable sites 🙂

#5100675

Phuncz

2015-06-19 10:13

Funny how Hilbert warns us all about the "reality distortion" of AMD's internal benchmark slides, while he was all over Nvidia's OC-driver slides:

The performance gap is pretty significant seeing that this is just a Soft update of the same card. Now the Thief benchmark have a skewed axis starting from 48 fps till 60 fps, so the performance increase is lower (percent wise) than star swarm. However we can see that the GTX 780 Ti overtakes the Mantle Equipped R9 290X once again in terms of performance, with this mysterious new update. This second slide shows some impressive improvements of API features that once again come in this new upcoming driver update. This is undeniably one of the most impressive charts i have ever seen. The Benchmark pits Mantle Equipped R9 290X against all three drivers. The new driver is very impressive, increasing performance by orders all around. We see an increase of an order of magnitude in DirectDraw. If these benchmarks are true, and it looks like they are, ...

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidias-tba-dx11-will-be-better-than-mantle.html In contrast with today:

Secondly, and I want to make a strong note about this, these benchmarks are made by AMD themselves, it's at 4K only and paints a very narrow picture. Please understand that when a company shows performance results in a guide or document, only the positive numbers are included. I mean its a marketing strategy to make 'the other guys' look bad. Yes, cherry picked results. So please do take these things with a grain of salt and just wait for the real-world numbers from media outlets like Guru3D.com before you draw any conclusions okay ? The Radeon R9 Fury X packs 4096 GCN cores and 8.9 billion transistors.

Hilbert, you have shown your color. *remove from bookmarks*

#5100677

MasterfulSaber

2015-06-19 10:18

Cherry picked could mean the games where AMD has the upper hand... Well honestly and personally these are teh games that really matter right now, the ones I would really like to see which one is leading. So thanks!

#5100678

Spets

2015-06-19 10:18

Funny how Hilbert warns us all about the "reality distortion" of AMD's internal benchmark slides, while he was all over Nvidia's OC-driver slides: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidias-tba-dx11-will-be-better-than-mantle.html In contrast with today: Hilbert, you have shown your color. *remove from bookmarks*

He also started that link you gave with:

If we can believe the slides of course.

Someone's colors are showing and it's not Hilberts 😉

#5100682

Megabiv

2015-06-19 10:26

Cherry picked could mean the games where AMD has the upper hand... Well honestly and personally these are teh games that really matter right now, the ones I would really like to see which one is leading. So thanks!

These cherry picked games are also running an a bizarre range of settings, I mean who would buy a high end GPU to run a 4k display with in game settings set to MEDIUM with no AF? Why not just simply put all games to maximum and set the 4k resolution with AFx16 and either AA on or off (throughout all tests) and see which is the better performer. Heck even the numbers from AC Unity are poor on both cards with those settings so why not just see what they can do flatout since we all now we can run 4k games if you adjust the settings.

#5100688

vajoiner

2015-06-19 10:39

yeah, i think i'll wait for the guru to bench it. thanks.