Fury X cost roughly the same as a 980Ti and competes directly with it I am confused as to why you are downgrading it to be equal to a 980?
This is especially true as the resolution is pushed higher in the game being questioned. Mind you these are with older drivers and depending on review you read the numbers vary.
the listing shows Fury (X) not Fury X. Parenthesis are not accidental on either inclusion. The point being the OP listed 3 years as a target and its not an unreasonable one. The funniest thing about running GTX 480 SLI for 3 years was discovering that when one card failed, I could run the same detail level and resolution as SLI on a single card even games that came out 3 years after I bought them, a waste of 400$. As long as the raw HP is there in the architecture you'll be set for that duration.
HBM is cool but it will not make up for 2GB less vram or 32 fewer ROP's 3 years down the line. The GTX 570 was faster than the 480 when it came out. It has not maintained that lead now as the shortcomings of the architecture came to light, like less vram, fewer ROP's and Fewer TMU's.
The Fury X is faster than the 980 but slower than the 980 Ti at 1600P for most games currently. For a 3 year recomendation on 1600P I'm saying that the 980 Ti is the min. So Fury X doesn't make the cut and gets put down with the Non-X Fury recommendation of the 1440P line. No fanboyism, just pure speculation based on what's happened in similar scenarios in the past. The stronger the underlying features of the architecture, the longer it performs at a high level, and 96 ROP's are going to be stronger longer than 64.
))))
