Originally Posted by p4inkill3r
Again, you won't own up to your own mistake and instead straw man the rest of the cards in the review, as if the reviewers might have made the same mistake that you did.
You keep saying mistake, as if there was one. Yet, you call me a straw man, when in fact it is you who is the straw man. You can see this easily by the fact that you continually say I made a mistake, yet you don't even look into what you surmise yourself. You keep claiming, the review I posted from Jay was many months old compared to the review done by Hexus in the OP and because of this factor, is not relevant to the current review posted in the OP since they are "such totally different cards
." Problem is what exactly is the difference between the Tri-X and the Nitro:
A whopping difference of 10MHz in core clockspeeds. So please do tell me again, what is the difference between the Tri-X and the Nitro, because if you are going to realistically try to explain how 10MHz difference in clockspeeds is that meaningful, then we both know who exactly is the straw man. Jay's review is still as relevant today as it was many months ago. OC vs OC results will still remain the same. I know this won't be enough for you to discontinue your disgruntled argument, but let's look a little deeper shall we.
How does the card in the review overclock?
3,954 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score.
How does the Tri-X overclock?
3,994 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score
Seems to me that the Tri-X is actually better than the Nitro, but I'm sure that won't be enough for you to stop. So let's see what else we can find (since that was a "synthetic")
Seems to me that these cards are still quite similar in performance, even with different "improved" drivers for the Nitro. Actually seems to be that the Tri-X is technically better in the end in actuality after looking @ overclocked results.
Nevertheless, Fury and Fury X don't have much overclocking headroom compared to Maxwell, which is the point you should understand that I have been making the whole time. Even though it seems you continually decide to ignore this factor, which is imminent in understanding the argument I'm trying to make. That which is, the 980 and Fury are quite competitive with each other. Except the Fury is not nearly as good at High Refresh rate 1080p gaming as the 980 is, when it comes to 1440p gaming it becomes a mixed bag, and as far as 4K goes well we already have delved into that, but we both know that you will need at least two cards to have a practial gaming experience and HardOCP has already done extensive testing on Crossfire @ 4K with both the Fury X and Fury, and I'm sure you know the conclusion they came to. Which is, Crossfire has the potentional to be the better product except, it isn't able to do this because of numerous amounts of problems, such as; Stuttering, Hitching, Framedrops, or even worse not working at all.
AMD Radeon R9 Fury and Fury X have all this great scaling and efficiency going for it in terms of hardware but have two things holding them back. The first is software and CrossFire profiling. Simply put, CrossFire support isn't as good from AMD as it is with NVIDIA in regards to SLI. Where there is a lack of CrossFire profile updates through driver releases there is also broken CrossFire in games that are a year old and bad frame stuttering in other games.
The second issue for high resolution gaming like 4K is of course the VRAM limitation we have driven into the ground now. Combine these two issues and it's like the Fury is trying to get there, it is trying to go fast but these little skeleton hands are coming out of the grave grabbing it back from its true potential.
We would love to see Fury X CrossFire at its true potential because we think the hardware has a lot more to offer than the current limitations are allowing
However, in the games it does not work well in, or at all, naturally the competition offers a better value
This leaves us wondering if AMD gives a damn about its CrossFire performance. We did point out all our issues with CrossFire weeks ago, and AMD has yet to have any real reply to our communications.
This is really the saddening part of the whole ordeal, how many issues we encountered with AMD CrossFire versus NVIDIA SLI. We had no issues at all with NVIDIA SLI in these six games, no stutter, everything worked and it was a smooth gaming experience. With AMD CrossFire we had issues in 3 out of 6 games played.
What has been lacking, and seems to continue to bite AMD in the butt today is it lacking software support, especially in the multi-GPU arena.
There is potential in the performance of AMD Radeon R9 Fury CrossFire. We feel it can beat GeForce GTX 980 SLI by a wide margin at 4K if just the software side of things could give it what it needs. It is that support of CrossFire not functioning in some games and not providing a smooth and efficient experience in others that is holding back the hardware once again.
AMD needs to up its game on AMD CrossFire support in games. AMD goes a very long time without WHQL drivers, relying on Beta drivers for sometimes longer than half a year. This needs to stop. Honestly, we need monthly driver updates to come back. Apparently AMD's highest end GPU customers are not a priority.
...again if CrossFire works in your game, and that looks to be a big "if."
Originally Posted by GoLDii3
The slides i posted done by techpowerup feature all reference GPU's minus the reviewed one,wich is a R9 390.
In the Hexus review,the overclock in the R9 Fury Nitro is nothing expectacular,50 MHz on the core.
And given the fact that there's a clear difference between Fury Nitro and Tri-X,chances are it's the SKU with the core at 1000 MHz same frequency as the reference from AMD.
So not sure what is your point,but keep that strawman going on instead of just admitting you are wrong using a 7 month old review.
There isn't a clear difference between the Tri-X and Nitro glance above please.
So please again, the next time you choose to claim someone is guilty of using an informal fallacy at least take the time to look into the details beforehand, instead of trying to make it appear like you have the slighest idea about what you are talking about. I mean for God's sake you couldn't even take the time to look at the clockspeed differences between the two cards like the guy above me before immediately calling out shenanigans. As if this would change any of the end results with OC vs OC results. Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 2/6/16 at 1:24am