Tuesday, June 16th 2015

Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench

AMD's upcoming $650 Radeon R9 Fury X could have what it takes to beat NVIDIA's $999 GeForce GTX Titan X, while the $550 Radeon Fury (non-X) performs close to the $650 GeForce GTX 980 Ti, according to leaked 3DMark 11 and 3DMark (2013) benches by Korean tech publication ITCM.co.kr. The benches see the 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. The cards maintain their winning streak over NVIDIA even with memory-intensive tests such as 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra (4K), but buckle with 5K. These two cards, which are bound for the market within the next 30 days, were tested alongside the R9 390X, which is not too far behind the GTX 980, in the same graphs. The R9 Nano, however, isn't circulated among industry partners, yet. It could still launch in Summer 2015.
Source: ITCM (Korea)
Add your own comment

100 Comments on Radeon Fury X Outperforms GeForce GTX Titan X, Fury to GTX 980 Ti: 3DMark Bench

#2
ironcerealbox
O.o
o.O
O.o
o.O

If this is accurate (still too early to tell until more benchmarks are released), then Nvidia might look like this:

Posted on Reply
#3
HumanSmoke
Encouraging, but I think I'd still like to see the actual screenshots of the benchmark runs
ironcerealbox said:
If this is accurate (still too early to tell until more benchmarks are released), then Nvidia might look like this:
Aye, and if they turn out to the usual pre-release FUD, then Nvidia might be all...


/Only wanted an excuse to post another Werewolf Rob Ryan gif, so +1 drug fuelled Tijuana binge to you @ironcerealbox
Posted on Reply
#4
jmcslob
Looks like Nvidia is still kicking ass in resolutions that 12 people use....
Posted on Reply
#5
Lou007
So is that 4gb of ram kicking 12gb of rams butt :laugh: It also looks like (If these are to be believed) that the R9 390X is more than just a rebrand.
Posted on Reply
#6
Basard
jmcslob said:
Looks like Nvidia is still kicking ass in resolutions that 12 people use....
Lol... I'm still at 1680x1050.... I'll probably upgrade to 1440 in a few years. But, yeah, I'm sure plenty of people are running 4k monitors, but the majority are still happily using 1080....

I'll maybe pick up a Nano after their prices drop a bit... after that (years from now) I'll buy a better monitor.... then after my Nano gets old, I'll upgrade to another card that doesn't suck 200+ watts of power.

The only reason I'm using this RIDICULOUS Asus 5870 is because a friend gave it to me for free. It's a fucking nice card, but shit, it was expensive when new and it uses a ton of power.
Posted on Reply
#7
haswrong
jmcslob said:
Looks like Nvidia is still kicking ass in resolutions that 12 people use....
:)
i wonder if the dual chip 2x 4GB card would behave as 8GB with no choke point, full throughput in the 5k and 8k firestrike benchmark in dx12 environment. thatd be a nice future-proof feat..
Posted on Reply
#8
ironcerealbox
HumanSmoke said:
Encouraging, but I think I'd still like to see the actual screenshots of the benchmark runs

Aye, and if they turn out to the usual pre-release FUD, then Nvidia might be all...


/Only wanted an excuse to post another Werewolf Rob Ryan gif, so +1 drug fuelled Tijuana binge to you @ironcerealbox
Aye, very true and good ol' Ryan brothers...always get a laugh out of those two.
Posted on Reply
#9
v12dock
I just wanna see some benchmarks... It's significantly cheaper than expected im almost considering getting two.
Posted on Reply
#10
HumanSmoke
Lou007 said:
So is that 4gb of ram kicking 12gb of rams butt :laugh: It also looks like (If these are to be believed) that the R9 390X is more than just a rebrand.
These benchmark " leaks" are by the same DG Lee who leaked this time last year, the info that the Hawaii die used in the 290X actually had 3072 cores/192 TAUs/48 CU when everyone else on the planet including AMD was (and still is) under the impression that the die contains 2816 / 176 / 44.
The guy has intense love of working out performance mathematically from known data points, which is why I wanted to see screenshots to allay suspicions that these are actual benchmark runs rather than mathematical extrapolation.
Posted on Reply
#11
haswrong
v12dock said:
I just wanna see some benchmarks... It's significantly cheaper than expected im almost considering getting two.
i wanna see a new poll too.. :banghead: :fear:
Posted on Reply
#12
xenocide
haswrong said:
:)
i wonder if the dual chip 2x 4GB card would behave as 8GB with no choke point, full throughput in the 5k and 8k firestrike benchmark in dx12 environment. thatd be a nice future-proof feat..
In DX12 it would, but I wouldn't hold your breath for an abundance of DX12 games. Developers probably won't release games that fully support DX12 until 2018.
Posted on Reply
#13
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
$650 hmm

Well thats going to be $849-$879 here in Canada..

Oh well ya gota pay to play :eek:
Posted on Reply
#14
jmcslob
LOL..I normally avoid these types of threads because they are poop...LOL
And I have a hard time not posting poop on threads like this....
Posted on Reply
#15
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Real competition, that's what I like to see. :) Let's hope these benchmarks are accurate.

I can just see NVIDIA having to release something like a "GTX 980 Ti+" with the full, ungimped GPU and with higher clocks in order to get back on top. Oh and maybe a price cut too. ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
Black
We will see but I think AMD finally on the right road :)
Posted on Reply
#17
Hitman_Actual
Apples to Oranges...... Maxwell is not Pascal. Wait until Pascal drops... As for this E3 Hype. I'll believe it after real testers get their hands on them and run some real world game testing.
Posted on Reply
#18
Mathragh
HumanSmoke said:
These benchmark " leaks" are by the same DG Lee who leaked this time last year, the info that the Hawaii die used in the 290X actually had 3072 cores/192 TAUs/48 CU when everyone else on the planet including AMD was (and still is) under the impression that the die contains 2816 / 176 / 44.
The guy has intense love of working out performance mathematically from known data points, which is why I wanted to see screenshots to allay suspicions that these are actual benchmark runs rather than mathematical extrapolation.
Ironically, those specs he quoted would actually cause hawaii to roughly perfoms as it does in its 390x form in those leaked benchies...

Slighty offtopic,: with the official launch being the 24th it atleast makes a bit more sense that reviewers didnt get any cards last week (Ryan Shrout anyone?). I bet they were handed out/sent to reviewers after this event today.
Posted on Reply
#19
xvi
Too bad the Nano isn't in the list too.
Posted on Reply
#20
Xzibit
Instead of spending $999 for single digit 8k gaming I can get it for $429. SOLD!!!! :laugh:

LG where is that 8k monitor you talked about. :D

/sarcasm
Posted on Reply
#21
Batou1986
If this is real how did they can get a hold of 8gb HBM card that AMD says is still in dev ?

nevermind for a second there I forgot the 390x is a 290x with 8gb of ram:slap:
Posted on Reply
#22
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Lou007 said:
So is that 4gb of ram kicking 12gb of rams butt :laugh: It also looks like (If these are to be believed) that the R9 390X is more than just a rebrand.
Would you choose 4 GB DDR3 over 1 GB GDDR5? The choice between HBM and GDDR5 will be similar.

xvi said:
Too bad the Nano isn't in the list too.
R9 Nano will launch towards the end of summer (mid/late August?). Hence nobody has even engineering samples.
Posted on Reply
#23
Hood
If true, I'm still not buying AMD, just happy that 980 Ti prices will probably drop $50-$100.
Posted on Reply
#24
bpgt64
As a long standing member of Green Team, very kool....love it when AMD punches Nvidia in the balls on price/perf.
Posted on Reply
#25
nickbaldwin86
4GB really.?.?. oh well

I hope this kicks down the prices of the 980Ti... I want two :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment