ASUS Readies Radeon R9 Fury STRIX

[Basard]

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-tri-x-radeon-r9-fury-4gb/

 

[623]

PCWorld ASUS STRIX R9 Fury review
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2946...e-brother-is-amds-geforce-gtx-980-slayer.html

 

[btarunr]

Yeah, we were going to have a launch review, but DHL strike delayed it. Originally the NDA was set for next Tuesday, but for whatever reason AMD pulled it to today (maybe to soften the blow of its next earnings call).

 

[Fluffmeister]

HardOCP too:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review

Seems to trade blows with the GTX 980 depending on settings used, consenus seems to be it's too expensive though, especially now custom 980's can be had for much cheaper these days.

 

[Casecutter]

R9 390 would do me fine, however 80-watt multi-monitor idle is absurd. However, if this GPU is closer to the 20-watt mark (like Fury X,) on multi-monitor idle,

Yea, if just doing on a dual or triple panel it's not great, but I believe that number is just that amount of time when you’ve walked away, while before entering sleep mode so your talking 10-20min which is fairly typical today. When performing normal email, web-browsing, YouTube, word processing etc. (aka non-stress 3D) I'd consider there not much different between either GPU provider. When in "sleep" AMD ZeroCore is shown to drop to around 2-3W, while not exactly sure how low Nvidia gets down during sleep, I kind of recall it’s still pulling about the normal Idle Watts.

I can never seem to find the one review site I've come across in the past that has indicated "monitor-off" (or they do it selectively) and I’ve yet to see any review this round providing "monitor-off/Sleep" numbers for a FuryX vs. the competition.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Doesn't counter my point. Both Asus and Sapphire cards say 'up to' so it is entirely feasible the two settings are for sub 1000 and 1000. If it ran faster than that it would use it in PR.

Aye, testing shows that the cards gaming maximum is the default "up to" number

The other option is its a power unlimiter but even then, I'd suggest logically that it means its clocked below 1000 on stock.

The power unlimiter seems more like marketing than real world feature:

So What Does The Unlocked BIOS Really Get You?

If we were mean, we’d answer the above question with "basically nothing." The second firmware is intended for overclockers, but its inclusion is questionable for a graphics card with so little frequency headroom. Other than the marginally higher power consumption during gaming, there’s barely any difference to be found between the two BIOSes.

Seems to trade blows with the GTX 980 depending on settings used, consenus seems to be it's too expensive though, especially now custom 980's can be had for much cheaper these days.

Yes, the Fury seems to shade the 980 quite handily (8% at 1440p, 15-18% at 4K), but OC vs OC (Strix Fury vs AIB OC 980) the competition is pretty tight

 

[P4-630]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/

 

[buggalugs]

Nice card. I would buy this over the FuryX just because of the air cooler....

 

[the54thvoid]

@Xzibit, well, you never technically stated what the bios was for so it looks like only I was wrong! That being said. It's just a dual bios switch as in other cards, so I figure what you were hoping it might be it wasn't either