Why a good decent card is abandoned??

[gordon93]

7 years driver support isn't the worst thing in the world? I have a 5600 XT and the last few driver releases whilst they support the 5000 cards, all of the performance improvements are for 6000 series, that's a 3 year old GPU

i know is a old card,but Nvidia offers drivers up to date even on very old graphic,that's why im so confusing.AMD they always abandon their old card....

 

[AlwaysHope]

The first Titan is good for 1080p, doesn't mean it was specifically made for gaming. The Fury cards were typically just better for compute with all the memory bandwidth, that not many many games need.

If anything I can always plop my 1650s (4GB) and test FC6 on 1080p. See if it's actually driver or game.

Edit: Maybe 280/7950 crossfire? That'd be nifty.

Fury tech was great for its time with performance per watt. 175w TDP for my R9 Nano & a compact size card for small boxes too, AMD even marketed it as a 4k card!

 

[Valantar]

is not discontinued like my card.Look.Last release was in may 2022. Just 1 month,not 1 year like in my case

That's a security update, not a regular driver update - in other words an emergency patch after they found a security bug. Regular driver updates for the 780 ti were discontinued in October 2021. As for the Fury X, while I agree they could have kept squeezing out drivers for another year maybe, it was discontinued at the same time as all other pre-Polaris GCN, so it was likely a choice of cutting them all off or continuing to support five years of GPUs still.

Imo, six years and change of driver support is fine. And I say that as a Fury X owner, btw.

 

[qubit]

is not discontinued like my card.Look.Last release was in may 2022. Just 1 month,not 1 year like in my case

Driver updates for all Kepler cards of which the 780 Ti is one, is discontinued. It's just been more recently than your card. My advice to you remains the same. I know it sucks to have a perfectly good piece of hardware be made obsolete like this, but that's the way it is unfortunately.

 

[DoLlyBirD]

i know is a old card,but Nvidia offers drivers up to date even on very old graphic,that's why im so confusing.AMD they always abandon their old card....

Read what I said, it works with latest drivers but it likely hasn't had any specific support for years, yes it will install them but will likely have legacy support and no improvements for years, guess it LOOKS better doing it that way than actually announcing no further support will be added for older GPU's

Both have working drivers, neither had any support or game specific improvements in recent years

 

[Dr. Dro]

Only AMD knows the true reason it was dropped, but it is likely that the R9 Fury X didn't make the cut because while it is ISA compatible for the most part with Polaris, its display and media engine have aged very poorly, for example, just like Kepler it cannot output 4K at 60 Hz natively without an active DP > HDMI adapter, and even then, you need to use the 19.9.2 driver or earlier because there is a bug that causes the card to just flat out ignore the availability of higher bandwidth resolutions. It is also not able to output a 4:2:0 signal as a workaround, the display controller does not support it, something that Kepler can do. It's also limited to h264/AVC-only encoding, for example, and has an earlier generation geometry engine vs. Polaris.

Add that to low video memory and the relatively small amount of users left, I wouldn't be surprised if they discontinued it because it isn't capable of providing a good experience with AMD's vision for future software development. I wouldn't be too angry though, it's already downlevel hardware (being only 12_0) and the final set of drivers for it are quite stable. You have an older GPU, enjoy it for what it is, IMHO.

I know.8GB vram is must have for the future.11GB vram for gtx 1080ti is blessing.I think that card will never die.....Next card will i buy is gtx 1080ti to be sure 10 years i don t have problem with game vram....

As beloved as the 1080 Ti can be, it is already well on its road to becoming obsolete, 11 GB or not. It doesn't hold its own in modern API games and it's downlevel hardware, it performs decent (not remarkable) in DX11 games and that's about it. In those it will be on the level of Navi 23. It also consumes twice as much power as the 6600 XT, while being behind in multiple areas due to the aged processor it uses, as well as incapable of handling modern graphics techniques.

 

[Keullo-e]

I know.8GB vram is must have for the future.11GB vram for gtx 1080ti is blessing.I think that card will never die.....Next card will i buy is gtx 1080ti to be sure 10 years i don t have problem with game vram....

1080 Ti was a great purchase as I picked one last year with a cheap price. Ray tracing is cool but not a must for me, so there's no hurry to upgrade.

But like I said, the community still makes modified drivers for GCN cards so they're still kinda supported.

 

[looniam]

i know is a old card,but Nvidia offers drivers up to date even on very old graphic,that's why im so confusing.AMD they always abandon their old card....

look at amd/ati through the years/gens, they make much larger arch changes than nvidia, who just keeps plugging away w/cuda cores.

a side note is the fury/x/nano were the only consumer hbm cards so yeah, disappointing but understandable. Eoops forgot vega

 

[Toothless]

Fury tech was great for its time with performance per watt. 175w TDP for my R9 Nano & a compact size card for small boxes too, AMD even marketed it as a 4k card!

Cept it would only run very few games at 4k, and didn't last long. Sure SFF and ITX loved, but AMD should've done a bigger core or not power gimp.

 

[looniam]

it wasn't bad compared to other cards . . .

had a 980ti myself and kept being surprised how well it kept up over the years, until recently . . 2 years(?)

 

[Keullo-e]

it wasn't bad compared to other cards . . .

had a 980ti myself and kept being surprised how well it kept up over the years, until recently . . 2 years(?)

I had also a 980 Ti before my current 1080 Ti and it also was surprisingly fine despite its age.

 

[gordon93]

Only AMD knows the true reason it was dropped, but it is likely that the R9 Fury X didn't make the cut because while it is ISA compatible for the most part with Polaris, its display and media engine have aged very poorly, for example, just like Kepler it cannot output 4K at 60 Hz natively without an active DP > HDMI adapter, and even then, you need to use the 19.9.2 driver or earlier because there is a bug that causes the card to just flat out ignore the availability of higher bandwidth resolutions. It is also not able to output a 4:2:0 signal as a workaround, the display controller does not support it, something that Kepler can do. It's also limited to h264/AVC-only encoding, for example, and has an earlier generation geometry engine vs. Polaris.

i think u make some confusion/First of all R9 Fury X was released in 2015 and it was declared a capable 4k graphic card like gtx 980Ti
Second if u want to compare,compare it with Maxwell generation not Kepler,because Fury X was equivalent with 980Ti card,and 980Ti was from Maxwell generation not kepler,if u catch my drift...
And third, Fury X can be output 4k 60p through Display port 1.2 without any adapter.It doesn t have HDMI 2.0 true, but if u use it DP on monitor not on a TV with hdmi it can be output 4k 60p.
And it can output full chroma 4:4:4 on 4k resolution through display port 1.2 trust me...

 

[Keullo-e]

i think u make some confusion/First of all R9 Fury X was released in 2015 and it was declared a capable 4k graphic card like gtx 980Ti
Second if u want to compare,compare it with Maxwell generation not Kepler,because Fury X was equivalent with 980Ti card,and 980Ti was from Maxwell generation not kepler,if u catch my drift...
And third, Fury X can be output 4k 60p through Display port 1.2 without any adapter.It doesn t have HDMI 2.0 true, but if u use it DP on monitor not on a TV with hdmi it can be output 4k 60p.
And it can output full chroma 4:4:4 on 4k resolution through display port 1.2 trust me...

Valid points there. IIRC it was limited to 4GB only because HBM1's limitations.

 

[gordon93]

Other people which have gtx 980 Ti u have no problem issue with vram in Farcry 6 right ?because u have 6 GB vram...in this case 980Ti is a blessing

 

[DoLlyBirD]

Other people which have gtx 980 Ti u have no problem issue with vram in Farcry 6 because u have 6 Gb vram...in this case 980Ti is a blessing

So it's a vRAM issue with FC6 and not specific to the FuryX?

 

[Keullo-e]

So it's a vRAM issue with FC6 and not specific to the FuryX?

Like I posted above, a GTX 1650 runs it fine with 1080p medium and it's a 4GB card as well, so a 4GB card can run it.

Could be the drivers, I also posted a link to the modified NimeZ drivers..

 

[looniam]

just for giggles, the latest bench i found (i'm sure you can tell where)

that is all.

I had also a 980 Ti before my current 1080 Ti and it also was surprisingly fine despite its age.

oh yeah that too but i kept look at fury/x and it very surprisingly did hang in there just behind 980ti - though in AMD sponsored games, usually.

 

[Keullo-e]

But for the second time, it could be a driver issue, not because of the VRAM. OP, try these modified drivers.

Radeon-ID Community Driver: Hybrid - Release Nebula 23.11.1 WHQL

[IMG] AMD Radeon | RdN.ID Community Driver Distribution Your Source for Multi-Kernel Driver Preset [ATTACH] Driver Catalog Compiled Under Windows &...

forums.guru3d.com

 

[DoLlyBirD]

just for giggles, the latest bench i found (i'm sure you can tell where)

View attachment 250703

that is all.


oh yeah that too but i kept look at fury/x and it very surprisingly did hang in there just behind 980ti - though in AMD sponsored games, usually.

Looks fine, 5-10% difference with similar class cards, it's a 7yr old GPU with 4GB of vram, what do you think it should be doing in 2022?

 

[looniam]

Looks fine, 5-10% difference with similar class cards, it's a 7yr old GPU with 4GB of vram, what do you think it should be doing in 2022?

not that good(?)

 

[DoLlyBirD]

Gonna break out my GTX 670 1.5GB as it should defo still kick ass today, rasterization was excellent but vRAM capaciy killed it (opposite problem) still kicked ass for years after, seriously, complaining about a 7 yr old GPU struggling with 2022 AAA titles is something special

 

[Keullo-e]

Gonna break out my GTX 670 1.5GB as it should defo still kick ass today, rasterization was excellent but vRAM capaciy killed it (opposite problem) still kicked ass for years after, seriously, complaining about a 7 yr old GPU struggling with 2022 AAA titles is something special

GTX 670 1.5GB? GTX 670 came with 2GB and 4GB memory.

 

[lexluthermiester]

PEBCAK

What?

 

[qubit]

What?

Good question and an even better answer.

Browse the Glossary - P - WhatIs

www.techtarget.com

 

[DoLlyBirD]

GTX 670 1.5GB? GTX 670 came with 2GB and 4GB memory.

You could be right, I definitely had a 1.5GB GPU at some point with 3GB bigger brother (might have been a 570?) could've sworn it was the 670, regardless, the point still stands, either you have too little vRAM and not enough rasterization or the other way around, too much vRAM for the rasterization on offer, point in case, 7 year old GPU is still 7 year old GPU and shouldn't be relied upon in 2022 to play AAA titles reliably, not matter how awesome they were back in their heyday..