• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4 GB

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
12,312 (3.49/day)
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Full Size Wireless Apple Magic Keyboard
Software MacOS 10.15.7
These days, 3D Mark doesn't say anything anymore. In actual games I think the fourth card usually means worse performance then three, and sometimes even then two cards!
I think that's pushing it a bit. CFX has either not worked, or resulted in better performance. I've never encountered a situation where I got less performance from CFX. Not to say those situations don't exist, I just don't think they're as common as you think except for day 0 games, in which case drivers need to naturally keep up. People demonize CFX and SLI more than it deserves. The fact that it's only the 1GB framebuffer keeping my 6870s back alone says (in my opinion,) good things about scaling.

Mind you, this doesn't mean CFX is perfect, I just think it was a work while investment while investment for a cheaper upgrade at the time and I would do it again.
Okay, this review by ixbit with a new driver shows very different story. Fury X is neck-on-neck with TITAN X and 980 Ti - even at sub-4k. Is this actually correct or biased of sorts?
https://translate.googleusercontent....shtml&usg=ALkJrhhnmEOoMRKsDO6nalghr9D1qAWVCA
I wouldn't be slightly surprised if AMD had some tweaking they could do with Fiji. I'm sure after a few driver tweaks, if there are substantial gains or requests for, W1zz might consider another review. As it stands right now though, it seems to keep up with the best of them just fine. Plus, you're probably not getting a Fury X if your intention is to play at 1080p60 and even if you were, I don't think you would be disappointed with the performance.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
504 (0.11/day)
Location
You are here.
System Name Prometheus
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5950x
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
Cooling EKWB EK-240 AIO D-RGB
Memory G.Skill Trident Z Neo 32GB
Video Card(s) ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5600 XT EVO
Storage WD Black SN850 1TB Gen4 x4 + 2 x Intel X25-M 160GB SATA
Display(s) DELL U4320Q 4K + Wacom Cintiq Pro 16 4K
Case Jonsbo A4 ver1.1 SFF
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum SFX
Mouse Logitech G305 White Lightspeed
Keyboard Vortex Race 3 75% MX Brown
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
I was referring to 4xCFX as opposed to 3xCFX or 2xCFX. 2xCFX and 3xCFX have good scaling. 4xCFX has crappy scaling (sometimes negative when comparing to 3xCFX). Same with SLI.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
345 (0.10/day)
System Name Off-Brand PC System
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard X399
Cooling Wraithripper
Video Card(s) Vega 64
Benchmark Scores Less than Intel and Nvidia
So how will R9 Nano be "significantly faster" than 290x when an overclocked 290x (390x) is not much slower than Fury X.
 

the54thvoid

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,543 (2.22/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
System Name Newer Ho'Ryzen
Processor Ryzen 3700X
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VI Hero
Cooling TR Le Grand Macho
Memory 16Gb G.Skill 3200 RGB
Video Card(s) RTX 2080ti MSI Duke @2Ghz ish
Storage Samsumg 960 Pro m2. 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Lian Li PC-V33WX
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Seasonic Prime TItanium 850
Software W10
Benchmark Scores Look, it's a Ryzen on air........ What's the point?
@TheMattB81







Just for comparison and nothing more.

Graphics score of 4x Fury X = 15307 CPU score 23810
Graphics score of 4x 980ti = 17748 CPU score 21859

Overall FuryX = 13605
Overall 980ti = 16122

The 980ti's looked to be mildly overclocked but nothing extreme. This was the 2nd lowest 4 card set up. The lowest 980ti set up only managed 13xxx on graphics score but gpu's were marked at 1000Mhz?

Clock for clock, Fury X is a winner but Maxwell's boost makes clock for clock unlikely in the real world.

EDIT: FTR - single card Ultra top 100 lowest score is 5102, Dual card is 8805.

Any chance AMDMatt could OC those cards and rebench? Far better comparison that way.


 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
473 (0.13/day)
System Name Fractal Define R5 | Fractal Define R6
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | Intel Core i7-9900K @ 5 Ghz all cores
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X570 Gaming | MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling CORSAIR Hydro H115i, RGB | CORSAIR Hydro H150i RGB
Memory G.Skill Trident 32GB 3200 Mhz RGB| HyperX 32GB 3600 Mhz RGB
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO 11 GB| MSI RTX 3080 Ti Gaming X TRIO 12 GB
Display(s) 2X LG 27UL600 27in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP| LG 32UL950-W 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Fractal R5 tempered glass | Fractal R6 tempered glass
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z | Creative Sound Blaster AE-7
Power Supply Seasonic 750 watts| Seasonic 1000 watts
Mouse Bloody P95s
Keyboard Logitech G810s
Software MS Windows 10 Pro version 21H1
Yes, but how is that relevant or argue with what I said? Command ports and pathways are needed to test the overhead of the api.

As I said, AMD cards will see more speed increase from dx12 (obviously since Microsoft makes it, who has not one but two consoles on the market with AMD GPUs), but we just don't know yet (or those who do are still under NDA) how much that speed increase will transfer to real life performance increases in games (so not talking about benchmarks here but actual game performances)... and - I believe - those who think that dx12 will magically make their GPU twice as fast gonna get a rough wake-up call.
Well, AMD gains MT with Windows 10, Nvidia already used their DX11 MT gains.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
814 (0.28/day)
Location
South Africa
System Name Mroofie / Mroofie
Processor Amd Phenom 2 x6 1100T Black Edition / Inte Cpu i5 4460 3.2GHZ Turbo Boost 3.4
Motherboard MSI 760GM-P23 (FX) / Gigabyte B85M-HD3
Cooling Stock Cooling / Same
Memory Apacer DDR3 1333mhz (4GB) / Adata DDR3 1600Mhz(8GB) CL11
Video Card(s) Nvidia GT 440 / Gigabyte Gtx 960 WF
Storage Seagate 1TB / Seagate 80GB / Seagate 1TB (another one)
Display(s) Philips LED 24 Inch 1080p 60Hz / LG LCD 19 Inch 768p 60Hz / Sony Bravia TV 1080p 60Hz?
Case Standard / Zalman T4
Audio Device(s) Meh
Power Supply Standard Psu 450w / Antec Truepower Classic 750W 80 Plus Gold
Mouse Meh
Keyboard Meh
Software Windows 8.1 Pro / Windows 7
Benchmark Scores Who Cares
I think that's pushing it a bit. CFX has either not worked, or resulted in better performance. I've never encountered a situation where I got less performance from CFX. Not to say those situations don't exist, I just don't think they're as common as you think except for day 0 games, in which case drivers need to naturally keep up. People demonize CFX and SLI more than it deserves. The fact that it's only the 1GB framebuffer keeping my 6870s back alone says (in my opinion,) good things about scaling.

Mind you, this doesn't mean CFX is perfect, I just think it was a work while investment while investment for a cheaper upgrade at the time and I would do it again.

I wouldn't be slightly surprised if AMD had some tweaking they could do with Fiji. I'm sure after a few driver tweaks, if there are substantial gains or requests for, W1zz might consider another review. As it stands right now though, it seems to keep up with the best of them just fine. Plus, you're probably not getting a Fury X if your intention is to play at 1080p60 and even if you were, I don't think you would be disappointed with the performance.

"if your intention is to play at 1080p60 and even if you were, I don't think you would be disappointed with the performance"

Did you even read the review ? :shadedshu:

:rolleyes:

So how will R9 Nano be "significantly faster" than 290x when an overclocked 290x (390x) is not much slower than Fury X.

Finally someone with brains :) :pimp::pimp::pimp:

If the Nano is exactly like the fury X then prepare to weep because it will be slower than gtx 970 and will have a possible $450 price tag (not really value for money in my opinion :rolleyes:) o_Oo_Oo_O

Yes I did. Don't be a smart ass. For a GPU that falls between a 980 and 980 Ti in most cases, I would say it would run a 1080p game just fine. Better than the other options? Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's no usable for 1080p or that it isn't any good.

I agree with the last line :)
 
Last edited:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
12,312 (3.49/day)
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Full Size Wireless Apple Magic Keyboard
Software MacOS 10.15.7
"if your intention is to play at 1080p60 and even if you were, I don't think you would be disappointed with the performance"

Did you even read the review ? :shadedshu:

:rolleyes:
Yes I did. Don't be a smart ass. For a GPU that falls between a 980 and 980 Ti in most cases, I would say it would run a 1080p game just fine. Better than the other options? Nah, but that doesn't mean that it's no usable for 1080p or that it isn't any good.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,318 (4.51/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
So how will R9 Nano be "significantly faster" than 290x when an overclocked 290x (390x) is not much slower than Fury X.
Looks to me like, overall, the 290x is anywhere from 27-21% faster than a 290x in looking at the TPU reviews (4K to 1080p). I would assume the Fury and Nano will fall right in between those values, perhaps 10% slower.

You can also overclock the core on the Fury X and I would assume the Fury. Now, you can't touch the memory (so what, its 4096 bit!) and the core headroom is not as much, but, its clear they have their place. The 390x will be several percent behind the Fury and Nano (as I understand it, the Nano will be Furylike performance). Its a tight fit, no doubt, but there is room there.

Someone was also able to overclock the ram on the FuryX too so... there is that too (assuming it trickles down to Fury of course).
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,348 (0.61/day)
Location
VT
Processor Intel i7-10700k
Motherboard Gigabyte Aurorus Ultra z490
Cooling Corsair H100i RGB
Memory 32GB (4x8GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200MHz
Video Card(s) XFX 5700XT THIC III
Display(s) ASUS MG278Q / AOC G2590FX
Case Corsair X4000 iCue
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM650x 650W Fully Modular
Software Windows 10
I think the Nano will be the biggest disappointment in this new series of cards from AMD. They made some bold claims with the Nano, and even the believable claims about the Fury X seems to have all been misleading or wrong.
 

Mobius Pizza

New Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
As many others, extremely disappointed by this release.

Also having a lot of trouble justifying the relatively high score in the review. 9.2 for this card? It is underwhelming across the board:

- price/performance ratio is shit, only card doing worse is Titan X.
- extremely high power draw
- performance/watt is last-gen at best
- bad - virtually non-existant overclocking potential

Price point is OK-ish, but really only makes sense if you love AMD because the card performs sub-par across many different resolutions and games. For 4K it may be a sensible choice, but that is about it, and then it still is a coin toss between Nvidia/AMD offerings.

So much for the big marketing push and incredible performance/watt jump of HBM. To be honest, I had expected a slight jump in performance, even if only 5% above Titan X, but even that is nowhere to be seen. Basically AMD put a lot of effort in new tech that does not perform better than GDDR5, and the fundamental GCN issues such as high power draw while watching Blu-Ray and at maximum output have not been tackled, if anything they have gotten slightly more pronounced.

The most surprising thing however, is the whopping 4096 shaders used and the virtually unlimited bandwidth and how little performance it all adds. It's almost like the card doesn't get to stretch its legs. Weird.

I can explain your suprise why 4096 shaders seem to result in poor performance. That is due to architecture of GCN is very different to Nvidia's Maxwell. In the former, all shader tasks are converted to compute tasks, whereas Maxwell has dedicated specialized units to do each task. There are pros and cons to each approach, for example, Maxwell doesn't need to translate commands to compute tasks and hence have lower latency (and higher fps) per transistor. GCN however, is more flexible and can potentially benefit a lot more when transistioning to asynchronous shader and Direct X 12:

 

AsRock

TPU addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
17,314 (3.33/day)
Location
UK\USA
Processor 2500k \ AMD 3900X+NH-D15
Motherboard ASRock Z68 \ ASRock AM4 X570 Pro 4
Memory Samsung low profile 2x8GB \ Patriot 2x16GB PVS432G320C6K
Video Card(s) eVga GTX1060 SSC \ XFX R9 390X
Storage 2xIntel 80Gb (SATA2) Crucial MX500 \ Samsung 860 1TB +Samsung Evo 250GB+500GB Sabrent 1TB Rocket
Display(s) Samsung 1080P \ LG 43UN700
Case HTPC400 \ Thermaltake Armor case ( VE2000BWS ), With Zalman fan controller ( wattage usage ).
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-A820 \ Yamaha CX-830+Yamaha MX-630 Infinity RS4000\Paradigm P Studio 20, Blue Yeti
Power Supply Seasonic Focus 650w \ Seasonic 750w MKII
Mouse Steelseries Sensei wireless \ Steelseries Sensei wireless
Keyboard Logitech K120 \ ROCCAT MK Pro ( modded amber leds )
Benchmark Scores Meh benchmarks.
yes... but i fail to see your point ... as for power consumption "ooohhh it will cost me more on my yearly electricity bill" (how much? ) also the 980Ti has 2gb more (but GDDR5 not HBM so the cost could also be the same)
so ... what do you try to say? that the card is a failure because it doesnt beat or scratch a titan X? while costing 400 less? so then the argument should be valid for the 980Ti to Titan X ?

ok i am finished with this thread :D enough is enough and time will tell us more funny story :laugh:

I know ya said ya done with this thread but, AMD did manage to all so put a water cooler on the card for about the same price as the 980TI which only has a air cooler on it.

And tbh the Fury X don't do to badly, just a shame it's to early for me need the upgrade and if any thing bites about this card is the HDMI limitation how ever if you turn of vsync you'll get more than 30fps anyways. I would have to down clock the thing in fact i have to down clock my 290X as it easy does gaming on 1080P 30-60 even at 700MHz on the core.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
85 (0.03/day)
System Name Intel [Enthusiast LGA2011] Platform ROG:
Processor Intel Core i7-3930K BOX HT On @ 4.71Ghz - 1.424v [Offset +0.035] / VCCSA - 0.950v
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme rev 1.02 [bios 4901 modded]
Cooling Corsair H110 + 2x Thermalright TY-143
Memory Samsung Original 16GB DDR3 (DH0-CH9 4х4) @ 110ns [2.41Ghz] 11-11-11-28 (1T) Quad Channel 1.525v
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Poseidon GTX780 Platinum [2-Way SLI] @ 1200/6600 - 1.150v (both cards revision B1)
Storage SSD 128GB OCZ Vertex 4 + 1.5TB Raid0 3x500GB HDD Seagate + 1TB HDD Seagate + 500GB Toshiba HDD
Display(s) Samsung UE48H6200AKXRU 48' Smart-TV 3D [S-PVA PSA 5ms]
Case AeroCool Mechatron Black Edition PGS-B
Audio Device(s) harman/kardon AVR + Realtek ALC898
Power Supply CHIEFTEC APS-850C Modular (80+ Bronze) @ 850W
Software Windows 8.1 with Update x64 Professional
Benchmark Scores http://valid.canardpc.com/2609985 http://valid.canardpc.com/2hgtzt http://valid.canardpc.com/dwqmsh
Hello, Im test Crysis 3 resolution 4K with FXAA FULL maxed out [GTX 780 SLI], and this im got:
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,318 (4.51/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
I think the Nano will be the biggest disappointment in this new series of cards from AMD. They made some bold claims with the Nano, and even the believable claims about the Fury X seems to have all been misleading or wrong.
I actually believe the exact opposite...

we will see soon enough.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
162 (0.03/day)
Really want to see a eyefinity review, haven't seen one yet, if anyone has, please let me know. I want to see 5760x1080, not quite 4k but alot of pixels none the less. ive seen 4k and crossfire reviews which as cool and kind of are what im looking for. i want to run two cards and apparently in 4k with 8gb hbm (4 x 2) helps alot and crossfire apparently scales almost 100% in areas for 4k. so i want to know if it still scales high at resolutions just under 4k as well.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
4,985 (1.00/day)
Location
Greensboro, NC, USA
System Name Cosmos F1000
Processor i9-9900k
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370XP SLI, BIOS 15a
Cooling Corsair H100i, Panaflo's on case
Memory XPG GAMMIX D30 2x16GB DDR4 3200 CL16
Video Card(s) EVGA RTX 2080 ti
Storage 1TB 960 Pro, 2TB Samsung 850 Pro, 4TB WD Hard Drive
Display(s) ASUS ROG SWIFT PG278Q 27"
Case CM Cosmos 1000
Audio Device(s) logitech 5.1 system (midrange quality)
Power Supply CORSAIR HXi HX1000i 1000watt
Mouse G400s Logitech
Keyboard K65 RGB Corsair Tenkeyless Cherry Red MX
Software Win10 Pro, Win7 x64 Professional
I was itching for an upgrade and this release hasn't given me a reason. More power consumption and less performance than the SLI 980 ti setup I am using. I guess I will just grab a new ASUS Gsync monitor instead.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
473 (0.13/day)
System Name Fractal Define R5 | Fractal Define R6
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | Intel Core i7-9900K @ 5 Ghz all cores
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix X570 Gaming | MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling CORSAIR Hydro H115i, RGB | CORSAIR Hydro H150i RGB
Memory G.Skill Trident 32GB 3200 Mhz RGB| HyperX 32GB 3600 Mhz RGB
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO 11 GB| MSI RTX 3080 Ti Gaming X TRIO 12 GB
Display(s) 2X LG 27UL600 27in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP| LG 32UL950-W 32in 4K HDR FreeSync/G-Sync DP
Case Fractal R5 tempered glass | Fractal R6 tempered glass
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z | Creative Sound Blaster AE-7
Power Supply Seasonic 750 watts| Seasonic 1000 watts
Mouse Bloody P95s
Keyboard Logitech G810s
Software MS Windows 10 Pro version 21H1
I know Fury X is slower than the GTX 980 Ti but for the price you do get a water cooler. I say that isn't that bad taken that into account
Nvidia Titan X reduce image quality cheating...

The root of the problem is the image quality setting in Nvidia control panel. Check the difference (and proof) here:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041709168&postcount=84

there seems to be around 10% perf. drop after setting the quality to highest.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
5,194 (1.31/day)
Processor Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz
Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E
Cooling Corsair H50 push/pull
Memory Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7970 OC
Storage Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB
Display(s) Panasonic TC-L32U3
Case Antec DF-85
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V371 AVR
Power Supply XFX 850w Black Edition
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
Any chance you'll bench the Fury X again using the 15.7 driver W1zzard, or do you know any reviewer that has?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,071 (0.30/day)
Location
Indonesia
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Motherboard ASUS STRIX X470-F
Cooling NOCTUA NH-U12A
Memory G.Skill FlareX 32 GB (4 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Sapphire NITRO+ Radeon RX 5700 XT
Storage 1 TB WD Black SN750 | 2 TB Samsung 860 EVO
Display(s) Dell U2717D
Case Fractal Design Define R5 Black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 650W
Mouse Logitech G604
Keyboard KIRA EXS

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
17,098 (3.01/day)
Location
Piteå
System Name Black MC in Tokyo
Processor Ryzen 5 2600x
Motherboard Asrock B450M-HDV
Cooling AMD Wraith Spire I think
Memory 2 x 8GB G-skill Aegis 3000 or somesuch
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 2060 Gaming OC Pro
Storage Kingston A400 240GB | WD Blue 1TB x 2 | Toshiba P300 2TB
Display(s) Samsung U32J590U + BenQ GL2450HT
Case Antec dumpster find
Audio Device(s) Line6 UX1 + some headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Core GC500
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Dell Sk3205
VR HMD Acer Mixed Reality Headset
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Desktop stable
Any chance you'll bench the Fury X again using the 15.7 driver W1zzard, or do you know any reviewer that has?

He used them in the Fury review, no difference to speak off.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
22,822 (3.60/day)
Processor Core i7-8700K
Memory 32 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 3080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Any chance you'll bench the Fury X again using the 15.7 driver W1zzard, or do you know any reviewer that has?
Just look at the Fury review and you'll see Fury X numbers included?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
5,194 (1.31/day)
Processor Intel i7 950 @ 3.2GHz
Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E
Cooling Corsair H50 push/pull
Memory Kingston HyperX 1600 8GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7970 OC
Storage Plextor M5P 128GB/WD Black 2x1TB,1x6TB/Seagate 1TB
Display(s) Panasonic TC-L32U3
Case Antec DF-85
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V371 AVR
Power Supply XFX 850w Black Edition
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
Just look at the Fury review and you'll see Fury X numbers included?


I looked at your Fury X review, but it uses Cat 15.15 beta. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/6.html

Are you saying you've done another since then using 15.7 on the Fury X?

That's just the Fury, and I'm looking for reviews that compare the Fury X on 15.7 to the 980 Ti.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
28,188 (4.87/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Top