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

#76
Black
haswrong
look, there is a distant or not too distant possibility, that amd rented a technology from nvidia (who may have developed it themselves or rented elsewhere) to produce the improved price/performance ratio, just to keep the nvidia-amd tandem going. we may be just witnessing a perfect cartell going without realizing it. you simply cant tell. so 400 bucks for a top notch card is as possible as 650 bucks. but both under different economical conditions. do amd deserve their product to be bought? i dont think theres a natural deserve system in this world. if you think they deserve, then buy it for their price and then donate on top of it. there are people in this world for which its not easy to spend 400 on one brand new component. do they deserve to only buy used or old ones? your call..
AMD rented a technology from nvidia ? o_O
Posted on Reply
#77
LightningJR
If you extrapolate the numbers based on shader count of the 290X and the Fury X you will notice the Fury X beating the TitanX and 980ti in some games and losing to them in others. For one, you have to realize that the performance numbers of the 980ti and the TitanX are very close and losing to the Titan X or beating the 980ti will probably also have you losing to the 980ti or beating the TitanX, still following? ;)

Based on the shader increase only the Fury X should be competitive to NVidias highest end cards.

I do think 4GB is not really enough, objectively 4GB for 4K with future games, it's not realistic. I understand that AMD may not have the R&D down for 8GB HBM so they may not have the choice. I hope DX12 will help with future-proofing the 4GB HBM, only time will tell.

I have a 1080p monitor and getting a min framerate of 60fps in every game at max graphics is my goal so I don't mind the 4GB of VRAM but that's just me.
Posted on Reply
#78
xenocide
I get the sneaking suspicion the Fury X won't overclock that well too. I don't think the AIO liquid cooler was an aesthetic choice...
Posted on Reply
#80
the54thvoid
Xzibit



Nobody can say compared to the awful 290X cooler implementation that this Fury X design isn't anything other than spectacular.
For all the critics of the Hawaii release, AMD appear to have put a shit load of work into this design. On that alone, we should all applaud AMD for their work.
As for performance I'll wait and see the reviews and not pander to rumour so close to its release. But c'mon people, the Fury X design brief is top fucking notch. Pardon my French.
Posted on Reply
#81
Wshlist
Ebo
I think some of our members have been spreading FUD no matter what.

AMD have launched a new lineup, based on completely new tech with new menory, a bandwith Nvidia can only dream of.

1 member in perticular have been very negative allready from the start. He wants maximum preformance for under 400 euros which is his max....well that NOT going to happen and even within his price range he is still unhappy while his machine have a 3 year old setup. I just dont understand it at all.

If you want the newest and best, theres a price to pay, and still AMD delivers even this time arround, at a lower price, than Nvidia has of now.
Looking at how some have been bashing AMD for not delivering stabile drivers ?, just look at Nvidia their last 3 drivers havent been stabile and caused a lot of problems for a lot of people, until the last one, so my friend tells me.

I have made my mind up, Im going for the Fury X or the Fury, all comes down to which hit the shelves first and I really dont care about the price. It can be 500-6-7 euros, I dont care, all I know is that I want it.
Paying the top price at introduction of a top of the line card is a fool's game, you will find a better cheaper, and fixed, product will be out a few months later and your money is gone.
But if you have a lot of spare cash and don't care, all the better you buy it since that does help the companies and that does help the people who are more sensible with their money :)
Posted on Reply
#82
Wshlist
LightningJR
If you extrapolate the numbers based on shader count of the 290X and the Fury X you will notice the Fury X beating the TitanX and 980ti in some games and losing to them in others. For one, you have to realize that the performance numbers of the 980ti and the TitanX are very close and losing to the Titan X or beating the 980ti will probably also have you losing to the 980ti or beating the TitanX, still following? ;)

Based on the shader increase only the Fury X should be competitive to NVidias highest end cards.

I do think 4GB is not really enough, objectively 4GB for 4K with future games, it's not realistic. I understand that AMD may not have the R&D down for 8GB HBM so they may not have the choice. I hope DX12 will help with future-proofing the 4GB HBM, only time will tell.

I have a 1080p monitor and getting a min framerate of 60fps in every game at max graphics is my goal so I don't mind the 4GB of VRAM but that's just me.
I don't think it's about 4K monitors but about VR headsets, those start at 2.5K or so but next generation offerings might up it a bit.
As for the need for more RAM, they do have that direct system RAM mapping and fast transferring, and streaming textures, and their newish compression techniques for textures which is suppose to fix the need for a lot of RAM in newer games. Suppose to I say, but will it work out?
It's a tricky thing because MS and sony also thought they were alright with their consoles, but even at E3 and with fancy demo videos I notice some poor resolution on textures on a regular basis, so that illustrates that whatever the experts predict is perfectly fine might not be quite that fine.
But as you say, that is for if you actually use 4K displays/future VR headsets and are a bit nitpicky

As for 8GB HBM, I think it's too tricky (low yield/heat issues/cost?) to start with that I would guess. But it does feel odd that my 2011 GFX card has 3GB and 4GB would be enough for now. Plus I didn't even touch on the non-game uses graphics cards have these days through directcompute and OpenCL and such. But oh well.
Posted on Reply
#84
DeadSkull
GG, It's over. Nvidia is finished.
Posted on Reply
#85
badtaylorx
this sucks. I use 5400x1080 (5k portrait eyefinity)for my sim racing. I really wanted the new fury cards, but I may have to go with a couple 390x's instead...
Posted on Reply
#86
darkangel0504
DeadSkull
GG, It's over. Nvidia is finished.
Nope.
Posted on Reply
#87
Yorgos
xenocide
That's a game Nvidia wins. The Fury X is an expensive piece of hardware with still pricey HBM, a pretty complicated manufacturing process, and that AIO liquid cooler. I'd be amazed if AMD was making anywhere near what Nvidia is making per sale with the 980 Ti. If Nvidia drops the 980 Ti even to $600 it hurts AMD. Dropping it to something like $550 and knocking $50 off all their cards on the way down makes AMD irrelevant at most price points...
it's nice to see people wanting so much something that they end up believing it's true.

The deal here is that they cut down costs from buying memory chips,
cutting down costs from the complex pcb/larger pcb, e.t.c.
That's why an 8-core Arm soc costs like 5$ and
while an 8-core Arm cpu and a dGPU and a dModem and a dWifi module e.t.c. will cost each 5$ plus the cost to design the pcb and put them together.
Companies are integrating Ram controllers, southbridges, northbridges, networking staff, accelerator and many other things into 1 piece of silicon... because it's dirty cheap.
Sorry to burst your bubble, live with it.
Posted on Reply
#88
HavocNME
This is going to sound stupid but they had multiple memory chips on these boards in the last series, so why can't they put two 4GB HBM stacks on one card to make 8GB of memory until the 8GB HBM stack is perfected?
Posted on Reply
#89
[XC] Oj101
HavocNME
This is going to sound stupid but they had multiple memory chips on these boards in the last series, so why can't they put two 4GB HBM stacks on one card to make 8GB of memory until the 8GB HBM stack is perfected?
That will make for a much bigger GPU package, consequences of that may include lower yields and higher failure rates. Because the memory is integrated into the GPU package, if memory fails you bin the whole lot. There's no salvaging of the GPU.
Posted on Reply
#91
LightningJR
HavocNME
This is going to sound stupid but they had multiple memory chips on these boards in the last series, so why can't they put two 4GB HBM stacks on one card to make 8GB of memory until the 8GB HBM stack is perfected?
It's not a stupid question but it is a question that's difficult to answer. For one AMD seems to have 4 stacks of 1GB/8Gbit HBM on the substrate. Answering the question of why they can't just use 2GB/16Gbit stacks or some other mixture is difficult to answer since it would require someone to look for technical papers on HBM or have a direct engineer working in the field give us the answer. I'll admit that I didn't search for the answer for myself but if I were to speculate, going from the top of the pyramid, it's either too expensive, too difficult or just not ready (R&D). There's a multitude of reasons that could affect these options, like I said I didn't do the research, i could give you all the reasons I think they couldn't do 8GB but they would all be speculation, winded and just take a lot of time to explain when I have to type it. :p
Posted on Reply
#92
Crap Daddy
64K
Leaked slide shows the Fury X beating the 980 Ti in every game at 4K

videocardz.com/56711/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-official-benchmarks-leaked
AMD slides, AMD favored games, AMD in game settings and the difference bar a few games is insignificant. Not too good at $650. Let's see how they OC. The custom OCed 980TIs like the Gigabyte monster for 40$ more should be well above Fury X.
Posted on Reply
#93
Haytch
moproblems99
What kind of car do you have?
Ford Focus XR5 Turbo 2012. It is referred to as the Ford Focus ST in Europe. I reside in Australia.

I never knew that Nvidia was planning on a mini version of the Titan. Is that even true ?
I also believe that AMD put a lot of time and effort into the new Fury, looking forward to its release and some benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#94
Steevo
Crap Daddy
AMD slides, AMD favored games, AMD in game settings and the difference bar a few games is insignificant. Not too good at $650. Let's see how they OC. The custom OCed 980TIs like the Gigabyte monster for 40$ more should be well above Fury X.
Wow.

Batman, AC:U, FC4, and others are Nvidia titles.

www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/far-cry-4-nvidia-gameworks-trailer

www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/assassins-creed-unity-graphics-and-performance-guide

www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/batman-arkham-origins-graphics-and-performance-guide

But whatever you like to think so you sleep better at night.
Posted on Reply
#95
[XC] Oj101
Haytch
Ford Focus XR5 Turbo 2012. It is referred to as the Ford Focus ST in Europe. I reside in Australia.

I never knew that Nvidia was planning on a mini version of the Titan. Is that even true ?
I also believe that AMD put a lot of time and effort into the new Fury, looking forward to its release and some benchmarks.
Look at the date of the Titan Mini article :p
Posted on Reply
#97
Haytch
[XC] Oj101
Look at the date of the Titan Mini article :p
Ahh i just realized, it's an April fools joke. Sorry mate, i did not notice that because i don't care much for April fools day.
If you ask me, in the technology world it seems like everyday is April fools day. Drivers every April and everyone is a fool. :)
Posted on Reply
#98
Vlada011
I have only one objection. And that's nothing for graphic card.
But they really should launch normal simple tubes, same as on CORSAIR H100i example.
Without this bad and cheap sleeve. Everything else is great.
I even think that reference R9-390X 8GB from pictures are best designed AMD reference cards ever.
Much better than last year and HD7970.
ASUS will probably decide to offer something ROG from Fury X and R9-390X 8GB.
Probably Poseidon models. But maybe even they improve AIO design and invest little more money in that.
But OK they want to offer for 550-650$ same as TITAN X for 1000$ and they save little money.
Radiator could be cubic as Coolstream PE, some similar type, normal tubes, but that would be probably more expensive cards.
Anyway I think many people will decide to buy Air model, Fury X for 550$.
At least card will offer excellent gaming for 1080p and 1440p resolution. Than when become possible AMD will launch and Fury X 8GB, immediately, same as R9-290X.
For same price only little later.
That's some other politic little than NVIDIA. NVIDIA completely trained their fans, now poor people even justify sabotage of 1 years old premium card.
They say "NVIDIA need to earn somehow money"... Poor NVIDIA, they will bankrupt probably if big part of people who bought 780Ti decide to keep card longer.
Because of that they need to sabotage fps on 780Ti and for people that's OK. Like only NVIDIA want profit, as AMD and Intel don't need but didn't done something like that.

It's not always question who make better chip, in theory GTX780Ti is better chip than Hawaii, I mean full GK110.
But NVIDIA spoil own chip to force people forward... Hawaii now have and 8GB and higher fps than GTX780Ti... and what AMD don't need money...
Rumors say they will bankrupt max at 2020-2021 if something not change. Much worse financial situation, much less hype, much harder earn money and didn't done that.
AMD everything what they earn is on hard work, but NVIDIA big part is hype, and rich gamers allow to NVIDIA experiment with Shield, Tegra, etc...with their money.

Situation is now... GTX980Ti should cost 50$ less than Fury X, custom GTX980Ti models can't be more expensive than Fury X custom models.
TITAN X worth maybe 100-150$ more than Fury X. But only if benchmark tests are real. We don't know still.
24h after NVIDIA presentation people could look 10 unboxing video clips with different models and performance in details for most important models, even pictures for custom cards are available soon.
Now after 4 day, still very little about whole series.
Posted on Reply
#99
Wshlist
I said earlier that €500 is my limit for a graphics card, but when I think about it you do normally pay a good 100 for a watercooler, so I guess one should take that into account when determining limits. And when comparing to other cards too
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment