Friday, June 19th 2015

Radeon R9 Fury X Faster Than GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 4K: AMD

AMD, in its press documents, claimed that its upcoming flagship single-GPU graphics card, the Radeon R9 Fury X, will be faster than NVIDIA's recently launched GeForce GTX 980 Ti, at 4K Ultra HD resolution. This puts to rest speculation that its 4 GB of video memory hampers performance against its competitor with 6 GB of memory. From the graph below, which was extracted from AMD's press material, the R9 Fury X will be faster than the GTX 980 Ti, in even the most memory-intensive games at 4K, including Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Crysis 3, Assassins Creed: Unity, and Battlefield 4. Bigger gains are shown in other games. In every single game tested, the R9 Fury X is offering frame-rates of at least 35 fps. The Radeon R9 Fury X will launch at $649.99 (the same price as the GTX 980 Ti), next week, with market availability within the following 3 weeks.
Source: The TechReport
Add your own comment

102 Comments on Radeon R9 Fury X Faster Than GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 4K: AMD

#1
Xzibit
  • Popcorn
  • Chair
  • Let the show begin
Posted on Reply
#2
jigar2speed
If this is what AMD says, I am highly doubtful about Fury X beating GTX 980Ti.
Posted on Reply
#3
dj-electric
How about we all keep it quite until next week, ah?
Posted on Reply
#4
bobbavet
Why did the Product slide produce earlier by AMD state 54fps for Crysis and yet this graph shows around 45fps?
Posted on Reply
#5
Aceman.au
So it doesn't even compete with the Titan X? What....
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
I think that might be a job for AMD Radeon Fury Maxx ;)
Posted on Reply
#7
Basard
bobbavet
Why did the Product slide produce earlier by AMD state 54fps for Crysis and yet this graph shows around 45fps?
Crysis 1 vs 3 maybe? I dunno, don't remember the slide... Besides, this slide is more like 35 fps.
Posted on Reply
#8
xfia
bobbavet
Why did the Product slide produce earlier by AMD state 54fps for Crysis and yet this graph shows around 45fps?
just higher settings.. remember dx12 games will have far better rendering efficiency so games will look better and perform better that could very well be around what sleeping dogs shows.
Posted on Reply
#9
nem
FURY vs TI
Posted on Reply
#10
zsolt_93
The only one where it seems substantially better is Sleeping Dogs, and that is like 10 FPS in a pretty old game. Not sure if that one is DX11. It is always nice to have competition but this seems to little for the disadvantages you get with Fury X. Maybe next gen with HBM2 8GB and air cooling on the whole lineup ,letting the customer decide if they want to go water even if its just a die shrink of this will be of more value. I hope the Nano comes out okay and is at lest at the level of the 980 so there is something new for the more budget oriented people to buy apart from the obvious rebrands that are filling the gap. I cannot understand why they just couldn' t cut the chip and release more cut down versions, having this whole lineup rebrand, but as a I think thoroughly there are 3 SKUs based on FIji, that is pretty much the same number a Maxwell chip has and it is just the naming that skewed the whole lineup.
Posted on Reply
#11
ensabrenoir


until some actual third party reviews......
Posted on Reply
#12
xfia
zsolt_93
The only one where it seems substantially better is Sleeping Dogs, and that is like 10 FPS in a pretty old game. Not sure if that one is DX11. It is always nice to have competition but this seems to little for the disadvantages you get with Fury X. Maybe next gen with HBM2 8GB and air cooling on the whole lineup ,letting the customer decide if they want to go water even if its just a die shrink of this will be of more value. I hope the Nano comes out okay and is at lest at the level of the 980 so there is something new for the more budget oriented people to buy apart from the obvious rebrands that are filling the gap. I cannot understand why they just couldn' t cut the chip and release more cut down versions, having this whole lineup rebrand, but as a I think thoroughly there are 3 SKUs based on FIji, that is pretty much the same number a Maxwell chip has and it is just the naming that skewed the whole lineup.
its actually more like it will be at least that much.. a microsoft engineer mentioned how gcn is very well optimized for lighting affects and performance can increase 30 percent.
Posted on Reply
#13
ZoneDymo
Basard
Crysis 1 vs 3 maybe? I dunno, don't remember the slide... Besides, this slide is more like 35 fps.
He meant to type Far Cry 4, and yeah that shows 45 fps here but as shown earlier:


They claimed 54 fps, quite a big difference.
Posted on Reply
#14
xfia
ZoneDymo
He meant to type Far Cry 4, and yeah that shows 45 fps here but as shown earlier:


They claimed 54 fps, quite a big difference.
they dont really consider aa necessary for 4k especially with 1 gpu since its ultrahd and most people will never see the pixels unless they are very close like vr or very large displays.
Posted on Reply
#15
sakai4eva
xfia
they dont really consider aa necessary for 4k especially with 1 gpu since its ultrahd and most people will never see the pixels unless they are very close like vr or very large displays.
Yeah... What's the point of AA when you have massive pixel density?
Posted on Reply
#16
revanchrist
I think AMD got a winner here with Fury X since it beats 980 Ti even in those Nvidia Gameworks titles. Even if you think AMD might be exaggerating a bit in these slides for marketing purposes or whatever, a tie in those Gameworks titles are still a job very well done.
Posted on Reply
#17
the54thvoid
Unfortunately there is an old Norse saying, "Press decks for products are like axes in a window - sharp and shiny as they are, you can only trust them when rending limbs from bone"

In other words, 5 more days. But I have no doubt it'll be fast, probably faster, stock versus stock but I doubt in all games. If it actually is faster then that's good because it means they've conquered Nvidia's Gamehurts.
But, remember the Norsemen.
Posted on Reply
#18
m6tzg6r
So its faster in 4K? Well the 13 people who game in 4K are probably happy to hear that.
Posted on Reply
#19
sakai4eva
m6tzg6r
So its faster in 4K? Well the 13 people who game in 4K are probably happy to hear that.
Well, for someone like me who doesn't game in 4k but would like to in the future, getting a card that is capable of doing that now would make it possible for incremental upgrades that doesn't break the bank every once in a while.

I'm not excited, but I have a small warm, fuzzy feeling that says "Go AMD, go!"
Posted on Reply
#20
Haytch
m6tzg6r
So its faster in 4K? Well the 13 people who game in 4K are probably happy to hear that.
I am happy to hear that, ill be happier when i see that!
Posted on Reply
#21
xfia
Haytch
I am happy to hear that, ill be happier when i see that!
when things get memory intensive it will take over and actually that happens a lot at 4k with gddr5.. higher core boost clocks matter less above 1080p because of it. maybe not so much with a beast 512bit bus, 8gb vram and compression.
Posted on Reply
#22
mirakul
zsolt_93
The only one where it seems substantially better is Sleeping Dogs, and that is like 10 FPS in a pretty old game. Not sure if that one is DX11. It is always nice to have competition but this seems to little for the disadvantages you get with Fury X. Maybe next gen with HBM2 8GB and air cooling on the whole lineup ,letting the customer decide if they want to go water even if its just a die shrink of this will be of more value. I hope the Nano comes out okay and is at lest at the level of the 980 so there is something new for the more budget oriented people to buy apart from the obvious rebrands that are filling the gap. I cannot understand why they just couldn' t cut the chip and release more cut down versions, having this whole lineup rebrand, but as a I think thoroughly there are 3 SKUs based on FIji, that is pretty much the same number a Maxwell chip has and it is just the naming that skewed the whole lineup.
I dare say that Sleeping Dogs used more Directx 11 tech than some Gameworks titles from Ubi$oft. It's a beautiful and fun game, though not overhyped like junks from Ubi$oft-nVidia combo.
Posted on Reply
#23
GreiverBlade
Aceman.au
So it doesn't even compete with the Titan X? What....
why should they compete with a card that is not even a gaming card (but that people buy as a gaming card) that is 4% faster (averaged) at 2160p than a 980Ti and cost 450$ more ~


now if the fury X is effectively faster at 4k and the Titan X is marginally faster than a 980Ti ... then the Fury X will be in line with the Titan X (case to case scenario) and cost less since price aligned to the 980Ti ...

yep the Fury line turn out quite good in the end (albeit having 4gb... but it's like nvidia with they magic "we don't need a 512bit memory bandwidth" after all a 256bit card was on par/beating slightly a 512bit card, despite having 3.5gb but it's another story...)

waiting for the reviews and SPECIALLY the NANO
Posted on Reply
#24
ZoneDymo
xfia
they dont really consider aa necessary for 4k especially with 1 gpu since its ultrahd and most people will never see the pixels unless they are very close like vr or very large displays.
Why bring up AA? Neither slide says anything about it, just "Ultra settings".
Unless you are thinking AA is not used in AMD's slide but is used in the one in this article, could be, could also be that AMD was rather generous with their earlier claims.
Posted on Reply
#25
xfia
ZoneDymo
Why bring up AA? Neither slide says anything about it, just "Ultra settings".
Unless you are thinking AA is not used in AMD's slide but is used in the one in this article, could be, could also be that AMD was rather generous with their earlier claims.
they pretty well explain the performance segments enough to understand what *smallprint means. they honestly just lay it all out. they are more than kicking ass with the fury cards and the r9 nana crushes nvidia in performance per watt with 250% over the 290x while being more powerful.. excellent for lower power and smaller form factor machines.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment