Kana Maru
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 5 (0.00/day)
Hello everyone, Mr. X58 is here, I came across this topic while searching for some GPU BIOS information to help a friend. I saw the topic in the “recent comments” section or something on this site. I figured I’ll FINALLY register here to join this discussion. In the first post I saw RE2 and I own that game. I also personally benchmarked it with my 4 nearly 5 year old Radeon Fury X 4GB. For the record I’ve benchmarked both Nvidia GTXs and AMD Radeon GPUs throughout the years. Some unexpected life issues forced me to take my website offline, but I have stayed active and quiet in the tech community. Mostly lurking and watching Nvidia+AMD+Intel & the fans\hobbyist\enthusiast etc.
One thing I have almost ALWAYS noticed was that AMD Fury X gameplay benchmarks almost never matched what I have benchmarked on a my gaming rig. For the record I’m using a 2008 platform Intel X58 + X5660 and stock GPU + DDR3 RAM. I was a large part of the ‘X58 revival’ as I call it. My website is currently offline as I stated above, but I’ll get it back online someday with up to date (Fury X) benchmarks.
So yeah my computer is 8 nearly 9 years old and my GPU is nearly 5 years old. I already understand that this card won’t be topping many charts since it’s using a very old architecture. So when I saw the RE2 trailers I just knew my card would choke due to great graphics and my 4GB limitation. However, 4GB hasn’t really been too much of a problem for the types of games I play. RE2 has no Vulkan support and I almost NEVER have faith in 95% of the DX12 implementations in games. So things were not looking good for my Fury X.
However, I played RE2 and was amazed at 4K performance and what I was able to pull off with the Fury X @ STOCK. The Fury X has aged very well in my opinion and that’s solely from my experience and my benchmarks. Even with the 4GB buffer, HBM still amazes me. Also the 1080p chart for this game on that website is way off. What area did they benchmark this game? I tried to match the benchmarks I saw on other websites by running through the RPD police station and complete roughly 15+ minutes of gameplay footage EACH run through. A few months back I made a post on Reddit showing my Fury X performance:
Resident Evil 2 - Fury X Benchmarked
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bervnl/resident_evil_2_fury_x_benchmarked/
I also have a Youtube video showing my Fury X performance @ 4K with “nearly” Maxed out graphics with the 1GB Texture setting since I can’t see a difference between 1GB and 8GBs using a friends' Vega 64. We literally played for 1 hour and 30 minutes @ 4K on a 75 inch and noticed NO difference in texture quality\image quality. So 1GB Texture was perfectly fine as you’ll see in the video below. All graphics settings were maxed except the Shadows and Mesh which was set to High instead of Max.
Youtube: RE2 @ 4K Fury X + High Settings (2160p (4K) - Shadows & Mesh = “High” + 1GB Textures)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee1jLG5XfxM
Now @ 1080p with ALL maxed out graphics here are my results with Stock Fury X and Stock DDR3 RAM.
Basic PC Specs:
MB: ASUS Sabertooth X58
CPU: Xeon 5660 @ 3.8Ghz w/ AIO
GPU: Radeon Fury X @ 1050Mhz (Stock)
RAM: 24GB DDR3-1600Mhz [4GBx6] (Stock)
OS: Windows 10 Pro
Drivers: Radeon Adrenalin 19.2.3
1920x1080p - ALL GRAPHICAL OPTIONS SET TO HIGHEST SETTINGS
As you can see above my Fury X results are WELL above what that site is claiming WITH 100% MAX GRAPHICS @ 1080p and many other sites are claiming. However, RE2 seems to be a rushed title to me. It’s one of my favorites series and games of all time (RE2 PS1 and I still play it). Certain parts of the game seem to be more polished than others. For instance the very beginning seems to have higher texture quality and seems to punish GPUs more than later parts of the game where it appears to be less going on (easier to run). If you read my Reddit post I explain 2 settings that when Maxed really offer NO true visible image quality during my tests (Shadows and Mesh). Or in other words those options kill the Framerate for no good reason.
No fanboy here, only facts and opinions based on my experience. I’ve benchmarked Intel-AMD and Nvidia over the past 7 years or so. I just thought I’ll put this here for the record to show that the AMD Fury X is still a very capable 4GB 4K GPU. My benchmarks are normally more in-depth, but there’s been a ton going on with me lately. Be sure to check the reddit post for more information and my ALL of my RE2 1080p\1440p\2160p & DX11 vs DX12 bechmarks. I might create a more in-depth post and the results here with frametime graphs and all of that. It takes awhile to perform benchmarks though.
Don’t believe the hype.
FineWine? I think yes. Frametimes are great, image quality is great, screen tearing has never been a problem so no complaints from me. Some people hated the Fury X and still do, that’s fine, I think otherwise. It was a GREAT upgrade from my Dual GTX 670s SLI setup back in the day. The Titan & 980 Ti wasn't worth it after using those for awhile plus I noticed worse image quality. Image quality means a lot to me. Obviously this is all my opinion. It is what it is, but the numbers and my experience don’t lie.
One thing I have almost ALWAYS noticed was that AMD Fury X gameplay benchmarks almost never matched what I have benchmarked on a my gaming rig. For the record I’m using a 2008 platform Intel X58 + X5660 and stock GPU + DDR3 RAM. I was a large part of the ‘X58 revival’ as I call it. My website is currently offline as I stated above, but I’ll get it back online someday with up to date (Fury X) benchmarks.
So yeah my computer is 8 nearly 9 years old and my GPU is nearly 5 years old. I already understand that this card won’t be topping many charts since it’s using a very old architecture. So when I saw the RE2 trailers I just knew my card would choke due to great graphics and my 4GB limitation. However, 4GB hasn’t really been too much of a problem for the types of games I play. RE2 has no Vulkan support and I almost NEVER have faith in 95% of the DX12 implementations in games. So things were not looking good for my Fury X.
However, I played RE2 and was amazed at 4K performance and what I was able to pull off with the Fury X @ STOCK. The Fury X has aged very well in my opinion and that’s solely from my experience and my benchmarks. Even with the 4GB buffer, HBM still amazes me. Also the 1080p chart for this game on that website is way off. What area did they benchmark this game? I tried to match the benchmarks I saw on other websites by running through the RPD police station and complete roughly 15+ minutes of gameplay footage EACH run through. A few months back I made a post on Reddit showing my Fury X performance:
Resident Evil 2 - Fury X Benchmarked
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/bervnl/resident_evil_2_fury_x_benchmarked/
I also have a Youtube video showing my Fury X performance @ 4K with “nearly” Maxed out graphics with the 1GB Texture setting since I can’t see a difference between 1GB and 8GBs using a friends' Vega 64. We literally played for 1 hour and 30 minutes @ 4K on a 75 inch and noticed NO difference in texture quality\image quality. So 1GB Texture was perfectly fine as you’ll see in the video below. All graphics settings were maxed except the Shadows and Mesh which was set to High instead of Max.
Youtube: RE2 @ 4K Fury X + High Settings (2160p (4K) - Shadows & Mesh = “High” + 1GB Textures)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee1jLG5XfxM
2160p (4K) - Shadows & Mesh = “High” + 1GB Textures (All other settings MAX)
| DX11 | DX12 |
|---|---|
FPS Avg: 41.7 | FPS Avg: 39.7 |
FPS Max: 53.4 | FPS Max: 52.2 |
FPS Min: 28.7 | FPS Min: 27.2 |
Now @ 1080p with ALL maxed out graphics here are my results with Stock Fury X and Stock DDR3 RAM.
Basic PC Specs:
MB: ASUS Sabertooth X58
CPU: Xeon 5660 @ 3.8Ghz w/ AIO
GPU: Radeon Fury X @ 1050Mhz (Stock)
RAM: 24GB DDR3-1600Mhz [4GBx6] (Stock)
OS: Windows 10 Pro
Drivers: Radeon Adrenalin 19.2.3
1920x1080p - ALL GRAPHICAL OPTIONS SET TO HIGHEST SETTINGS
| DX11 | DX12 |
|---|---|
FPS Avg:108.8 | FPS Avg: 108.4 |
FPS Max: 142.7 | FPS Max: 142.8 |
FPS Min: 47.3 | FPS Min: 41.9 |
As you can see above my Fury X results are WELL above what that site is claiming WITH 100% MAX GRAPHICS @ 1080p and many other sites are claiming. However, RE2 seems to be a rushed title to me. It’s one of my favorites series and games of all time (RE2 PS1 and I still play it). Certain parts of the game seem to be more polished than others. For instance the very beginning seems to have higher texture quality and seems to punish GPUs more than later parts of the game where it appears to be less going on (easier to run). If you read my Reddit post I explain 2 settings that when Maxed really offer NO true visible image quality during my tests (Shadows and Mesh). Or in other words those options kill the Framerate for no good reason.
No fanboy here, only facts and opinions based on my experience. I’ve benchmarked Intel-AMD and Nvidia over the past 7 years or so. I just thought I’ll put this here for the record to show that the AMD Fury X is still a very capable 4GB 4K GPU. My benchmarks are normally more in-depth, but there’s been a ton going on with me lately. Be sure to check the reddit post for more information and my ALL of my RE2 1080p\1440p\2160p & DX11 vs DX12 bechmarks. I might create a more in-depth post and the results here with frametime graphs and all of that. It takes awhile to perform benchmarks though.
Don’t believe the hype.
FineWine? I think yes. Frametimes are great, image quality is great, screen tearing has never been a problem so no complaints from me. Some people hated the Fury X and still do, that’s fine, I think otherwise. It was a GREAT upgrade from my Dual GTX 670s SLI setup back in the day. The Titan & 980 Ti wasn't worth it after using those for awhile plus I noticed worse image quality. Image quality means a lot to me. Obviously this is all my opinion. It is what it is, but the numbers and my experience don’t lie.
Last edited:
