Tuesday, July 7th 2015

Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Pictured, Specs Confirmed

Here are some of the first pictures of Sapphire's custom-design Radeon R9 Fury graphics card. The card features a triple-slot (or 2.2-slot) Tri-X cooling solution. Its PCB appears to be AMD reference-design (identical in design to the R9 Fury X), but cooled by a long triple-fan dual-stack heatsink, with over one-third of it being overhung. Quite a few GTX 970, GTX 670, and GTX 760 cards are known to have similar overhangs of coolers that are longer than the PCB.

The pics also come with leaked specs-sheets, which confirm its core configuration of 56 out of 64 compute units being enabled, yielding 3,584 stream processors; while leaving the 4 GB 4096-bit HBM memory untouched. The core clock speed is lower, at 1000 MHz, while the memory clock is left untouched at 500 MHz, compared to the R9 Fury X. Sapphire is also selling a factory-overclocked card with 1040 MHz core. The Radeon R9 Fury is expected to launch in mid-July (next week).
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

42 Comments on Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Pictured, Specs Confirmed

#1
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
I hope to see this in my future with possibly a new 1440 monitor.
Posted on Reply
#2
Unregistered
Short GPU like Fury X???? HAH! IN YOUR FAYYCCEE!!! :peace:
#3
Sempron Guy
Shamonto Hasan Easha, post: 3311312, member: 138597"
Short GPU like Fury X???? HAH! IN YOUR FAYYCCEE!!! :peace:
Why would anyone expect that the Fury card will be as short as the Fury X?
Posted on Reply
#4
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
Oh lord, I was afraid of this. These chips do run super hot to have an extended cooled on the cards..

I'll personally be staying away from these fury cards unless water cooled. Everyone knows I love my crossfire systems but not this time.
Posted on Reply
#5
Haytch
HUGE card. Most likely will have to add a water block on it anyways. So, with the added price of a basic water block and water cooling setup for this card + the card itself, probably worth going straight to the Fury X.
Posted on Reply
#8
GhostRyder
You know I was not as big of a fan of the Nitro cooler compared to the Tri-X cooler from the previous generation (Mostly on looks). Looking at it up close on this card however is not as bland for some reason to my eyes but still lacks the color and cool design of the previous. Maybe I just need to see it from a different angle.
Posted on Reply
#9
jigar2speed
Shamonto Hasan Easha, post: 3311312, member: 138597"
Short GPU like Fury X???? HAH! IN YOUR FAYYCCEE!!! :peace:
You do realize the PCB is short and hence there will cards of Fury X size...

fullinfusion, post: 3311317, member: 47646"
Oh lord, I was afraid of this. These chips do run super hot to have an extended cooled on the cards..

I'll personally be staying away from these fury cards unless water cooled. Everyone knows I love my crossfire systems but not this time.
Not really, Sapphire doesn't see worth in creating a new wheel for this card alone, hence the trusty old long cooler.
Posted on Reply
#10
Ecto Plasma
But why does it need a 750W power supply? Am I seeing that right because that seems a little crazy...?
Posted on Reply
#11
the54thvoid
Patriot, post: 3311325, member: 77367"
Up to 3584sp? um...
Yeah, and base clock 'up to' 1000 or 1040Mhz. Could signify known thermal throttling or playing it safe after Hawaii?
Posted on Reply
#12
TheButcherNL
Maybe it's possible to saw off the 3rd cooler, since it's not needed anyway :)

And lol, brumak51

cyaburg
Posted on Reply
#13
ensabrenoir
...........maybe this is meant to make the nano look extra awesome.....or some joint venture between Sapphire and Viagra,
Posted on Reply
#14
Sempron Guy
Ecto Plasma, post: 3311339, member: 91396"
But why does it need a 750W power supply? Am I seeing that right because that seems a little crazy...?
Because that's what gpu manufacturers usually do. Give crazy psu requirements. The last thing they'd ever want is to have some customer complain that the gpu he bought didn't work plugged on his 450w generic psu even though the manufacturer requires exactly 450w for the card.
Posted on Reply
#15
Petey Plane
Haytch, post: 3311319, member: 51583"
HUGE card. Most likely will have to add a water block on it anyways. So, with the added price of a basic water block and water cooling setup for this card + the card itself, probably worth going straight to the Fury X.
Why would you have to add a water block? The heat sink and fan setup on that card looks more than adequate.
Posted on Reply
#16
LightningJR
I find cooler overhangs funny, my 670 is the same, the whole blower fan hangs off the end of the card. Just goes to show how small electronic parts are becoming.

I do wonder if the 3 slot (2.2 wide) hs/f is REQUIRED, I wasn't a fan of 2 slot coolers but at least you can properly do sli/cf with them.

I sincerely hope a 3 slot is not required because of the temps. We'll know soon. I guess we'll know how good the water cooler on the Fury X is.
Posted on Reply
#17
idx
brumak51, post: 3311322, member: 155000"
the cooler....hmmm...

This is just the usual Sapphire Tri-x cooler nothing changed except the fact that this card is really tiny , thats why half of the Tri-x cooler can be seen naked with no board.
To be fair the Tri-x is not the only long cooler out there both Gigabyte and Asus got their new Tri-fan coolers on top of the GTX cards and to be honest both are ugly and noisy as hell !

Asus : 12" L , 6" H ... lol


Gigabyte: 12.5" Long !

the PCB of this 980 is 30.2cm long ! so yeah ... lol lol lol
Posted on Reply
#18
Casecutter
Looks like it's very close to the same package size 305(L)X 114(W)X 47(H) mm (12"x 4.48"x 1.8") as their R9 290X Vapor-X Tri-X... (or is it perhaps longer) So yea it way long. But I hardy think this would be as stressing as a Hawaii was on it. While if you look at the mounting screws it appears they didn't just re-use the 290X, there seems to be some differences in placement and spacing when compared to the PCI slot.
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
A cooler that big and they still have to make it triple slot...ugh...
Posted on Reply
#20
john_
Sapphire just took the best cooler they have and throw it on the card. If they where creating a different cooler for R9 Fury , I wouldn't be surprised to see posts saying that "I am waiting for the Tri-X version".

At least they didn't do something like this

Posted on Reply
#21
AsRock
TPU addict
Shamonto Hasan Easha, post: 3311312, member: 138597"
Short GPU like Fury X???? HAH! IN YOUR FAYYCCEE!!! :peace:
You not looking at this objectively, were with most coolers blow the hot air from the fins and heat pipes at the pcb this will be blowing the hot air away ( well 1/2 of it :P ) from the card which to me is ++.
Posted on Reply
#22
Sir Alex Ice
It would have been good to actually mention the length of the card.
Posted on Reply
#23
Petey Plane
Sir Alex Ice, post: 3311436, member: 73456"
It would have been good to actually mention the length of the card.
You should look at the pictures. The dimensions of the card are listed. "306(L)*114(W)*49(H) mm"
Posted on Reply
#24
Casecutter
Petey Plane, post: 3311442, member: 150824"
You should look at the pictures.
Wow, I looked at both those and I never noticed that before I wrote the post above... It's there on the right-side middle in bold print. I think that's messed me up... they see it as such an "admired specification" they put it out on it own and in bold.
So it's a little longer and thicker (2.2 slot vs. dual slot)
Posted on Reply
#25
RejZoR
That's actually a great benefit for a short R9 Fury. The fact that 3rd fan blows air directly through the heatsink creates a huge cooling potential since it's not blowing heat into the PCB, making entire PCB hot. Part of it will still do that, but at least 3rd fan will cool only heatsink and nothing else. And that will greatly help distribute heat. I expected this to happen since vendors have already extended the heatsinks over the PCB, but never this far. And I think this will work really well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment