Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Hexus] Review: Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Nitro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Hexus] Review: Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Nitro - Page 14

post #131 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenge View Post

Because it's not that good, perhaps? It's still a power-hungry 275W behemoth that didn't even increase its ROP count over Hawaii.

It only looked good in comparison to the Fury X which launched at a ludicrous $649, despite losing vs the 980Ti at every metric except "performance per inch"®, which is typically a claim only made by people who are covering over for "other" deficiencies.
You speak as if 980 Ti never loses in benchmarks...proof.gif
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

You speak as if 980 Ti never loses in benchmarks...proof.gif

Well, if you look at TPU, huge majority of 980Tis are usually around 15-20% faster than the reference model...
   
SFF
(17 photos)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770 Z77N-WIFI GTX 970 Turbo Kingston Valueram VLP 2x4GB  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston UV400 240GB ADATA XPG SX900 64GB Thermalright Macho Rev. B AC Accelero Mono Plus 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Thermalright TY-147A Windows 8.1 Enterprise 64-bit Dell P2416D Cooler Master V450S 
Case
Jonsbo U2 
MotherboardRAMHard DriveCooling
MSI N3150I ECO Samsung DDR3 SODIMM 2x2GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB CHECKMATE. IT'S PASSIVE 
OSOSPowerCase
Windows 10 Professional Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Thermaltake 220W Jonsbo U1 
  hide details  
Reply
   
SFF
(17 photos)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770 Z77N-WIFI GTX 970 Turbo Kingston Valueram VLP 2x4GB  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Kingston UV400 240GB ADATA XPG SX900 64GB Thermalright Macho Rev. B AC Accelero Mono Plus 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Thermalright TY-147A Windows 8.1 Enterprise 64-bit Dell P2416D Cooler Master V450S 
Case
Jonsbo U2 
MotherboardRAMHard DriveCooling
MSI N3150I ECO Samsung DDR3 SODIMM 2x2GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 500GB CHECKMATE. IT'S PASSIVE 
OSOSPowerCase
Windows 10 Professional Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Thermaltake 220W Jonsbo U1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

If you are going to review a product, at least make it a fair review. What kind of 980 are they testing in this review? What kind of 980 Ti are they testing in this review? What kind of Fury non-X are they testing in the review? I don't think that is too absurd of a realization to come to. If you cannot come to it, then I'll assist you. Here they are testing a non-reference Fury and yet all of the NVIDIA cards are reference cards. You can see how this will affect the end results right?
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.
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
post #134 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFPS View Post

I dont know WHAT Hexus is smoking there is NO way these number are correct.

Sure would like to give the benefit of the doubt, instead of saying Hexus boosted the numbers to make the product review more appealing.

There is no way this GPU is making 512 GB/s of bandwidth. Especially when all the other R9 Furys are making 256 GB/s. Now look at the pixel fill, 67.2 Gb/s. WHAT, no way. When all the other r9 are making 134.4 Gb/s with out overclocking. Come on.

And if it's that messed up just on the gpuz. You know I get it, there may be some kinda of problem with gpuz. However the reviewer just copy and pasted w/o even looking at the results. The rest of the review can straight in the toilet. As the reviewer not even smart enough to see how erroneous these numbers are. What a joke. They must think we are dumb?


UH, first off GPU-Z only lists whatever bullkaka the card's internal specs list and those numbers are almost always maximum - GPU-Z doesn't actually do a test of any kind. It has no place as anything more than a verification screen that there's an actual card in the system and even at that I've seen carefully photoshopped crack-joke GPU-Z shots.

The R9 Fury is technically capable of doing 512Gb/s with being 4096 wide and 500mhz DDR (see, there's a bit of info, its not single data rate memory) so if GPU-Z was listing all the R9 Furies as 4096 wide 500mhz single data rate hardware then there's your answer. GPU-Z was wrong to begin with and corrected the info on the Nitro.

When HASN'T GPU-Z been out-of-date and wrong...
post #135 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smanci View Post

Well, if you look at TPU, huge majority of 980Tis are usually around 15-20% faster than the reference model...
We cannot be more confident in the results more than the reviewers themselves, just saying. I rather enjoy a good read than assert a viewpoint. *let me exonerate myself in the process*
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

UH, first off GPU-Z only lists whatever bullkaka the card's internal specs list and those numbers are almost always maximum - GPU-Z doesn't actually do a test of any kind. It has no place as anything more than a verification screen that there's an actual card in the system and even at that I've seen carefully photoshopped crack-joke GPU-Z shots.

The R9 Fury is technically capable of doing 512Gb/s with being 4096 wide and 500mhz DDR (see, there's a bit of info, its not single data rate memory) so if GPU-Z was listing all the R9 Furies as 4096 wide 500mhz single data rate hardware then there's your answer. GPU-Z was wrong to begin with and corrected the info on the Nitro.

When HASN'T GPU-Z been out-of-date and wrong...
I don't get the hysteria. If you want to play titles demanding more bandwidth, get the Fury X. What is the point of trying to justify an overclock? All 980Ti models, indiscriminately, overclock the same. Just how much more vague-hype can an undistinguished lot come up with?
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

If you are going to review a product, at least make it a fair review. What kind of 980 are they testing in this review? What kind of 980 Ti are they testing in this review? What kind of Fury non-X are they testing in the review? I don't think that is too absurd of a realization to come to. If you cannot come to it, then I'll assist you. Here they are testing a non-reference Fury and yet all of the NVIDIA cards are reference cards. You can see how this will affect the end results right?
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.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 2/5/16 at 6:36am
post #137 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

UH, first off GPU-Z only lists whatever bullkaka the card's internal specs list and those numbers are almost always maximum - GPU-Z doesn't actually do a test of any kind. It has no place as anything more than a verification screen that there's an actual card in the system and even at that I've seen carefully photoshopped crack-joke GPU-Z shots.

The R9 Fury is technically capable of doing 512Gb/s with being 4096 wide and 500mhz DDR (see, there's a bit of info, its not single data rate memory) so if GPU-Z was listing all the R9 Furies as 4096 wide 500mhz single data rate hardware then there's your answer. GPU-Z was wrong to begin with and corrected the info on the Nitro.

When HASN'T GPU-Z been out-of-date and wrong...


Not only that the 1st GPU-Z is a Fury,the 2nd a FuryX. 64 ROP's vs 124 ROP's. LMAO!
Amelia
(13 items)
 
Professional
(13 items)
 
RCPC#1
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100t MSI 890FX GD65 MSI Radeon HD5670 GSkill RipjawsX DDR3 PC3 12800 2x4GB CL8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 1TB SATA III Samsung BD Zalman 9900MAX Windows 7 64 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
AOC 22" LED Logitech Kingwin Lazer Platinum 500w Fractal Design R3 
Other
Samsung 470 SSD 128GB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 960T Asus M4A88T-VEVO Asus Strix R7 370 SuperTalent Perfomance 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
GSkill Snipers Monster Daytona Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7,200 RPM 16Mb cache Memorex DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 8N IBM 9494 19" LCD IBM 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair GS500 In Win H-Frame Wolfking OCZ Behemoth 
Audio
JBL Creature 
  hide details  
Reply
Amelia
(13 items)
 
Professional
(13 items)
 
RCPC#1
(17 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100t MSI 890FX GD65 MSI Radeon HD5670 GSkill RipjawsX DDR3 PC3 12800 2x4GB CL8 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 1TB SATA III Samsung BD Zalman 9900MAX Windows 7 64 Professional 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
AOC 22" LED Logitech Kingwin Lazer Platinum 500w Fractal Design R3 
Other
Samsung 470 SSD 128GB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X6 960T Asus M4A88T-VEVO Asus Strix R7 370 SuperTalent Perfomance 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
GSkill Snipers Monster Daytona Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7,200 RPM 16Mb cache Memorex DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 8N IBM 9494 19" LCD IBM 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair GS500 In Win H-Frame Wolfking OCZ Behemoth 
Audio
JBL Creature 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by prjindigo View Post

UH, first off GPU-Z only lists whatever bullkaka the card's internal specs list and those numbers are almost always maximum - GPU-Z doesn't actually do a test of any kind. It has no place as anything more than a verification screen that there's an actual card in the system and even at that I've seen carefully photoshopped crack-joke GPU-Z shots.

The R9 Fury is technically capable of doing 512Gb/s with being 4096 wide and 500mhz DDR (see, there's a bit of info, its not single data rate memory) so if GPU-Z was listing all the R9 Furies as 4096 wide 500mhz single data rate hardware then there's your answer. GPU-Z was wrong to begin with and corrected the info on the Nitro.

When HASN'T GPU-Z been out-of-date and wrong...


Not only that the 1st GPU-Z is a Fury,the 2nd a FuryX. 64 ROP's vs 124 ROP's. LMAO!
all Fury's are 64 ROP's including Nano, vanilla fury and fury X.

The only difference in the chips between Fiji pro and Fiji XT is how many TMU's and Shaders are enabled.
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
THINGY (DEAD)
(14 items)
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 2 X4 645 MSI 990FXA-GD65 2x ATI 5770 1GB  Corsair Vengeance LP 8Gb (4Gb X2) 1640Mhz 9-8-7... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD502HI and Samsung HD502IJ LG DVD-RW CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO Windows 7 home premium 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Microsoft Wired 600 FSP ATX 700-82GHN Aerocool PGS-V series VX-9 Pro Battle Edition 
MouseAudio
Verbatim Rapier V2 Creative SBS 370 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
THINGY (DEAD)
(14 items)
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 2 X4 645 MSI 990FXA-GD65 2x ATI 5770 1GB  Corsair Vengeance LP 8Gb (4Gb X2) 1640Mhz 9-8-7... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung HD502HI and Samsung HD502IJ LG DVD-RW CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO Windows 7 home premium 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Microsoft Wired 600 FSP ATX 700-82GHN Aerocool PGS-V series VX-9 Pro Battle Edition 
MouseAudio
Verbatim Rapier V2 Creative SBS 370 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
post #139 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4inkill3r View Post

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")

Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:



Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:



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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
However, in the games it does not work well in, or at all, naturally the competition offers a better value
Quote:
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.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/10/06/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_crossfire_at_4k_review/10
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...again if CrossFire works in your game, and that looks to be a big "if."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/09/28/asus_strix_radeon_r9_fury_dc3_crossfire_at_4k_review/11
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

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. rolleyes.gif
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 2/6/16 at 1:24am
post #140 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

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. rolleyes.gif
Just keep going on preaching on that 7 months old review,not even 1 month since Fury X launch. And same day of Fury Pro launch. rolleyes.gif

Because drivers are useless and absolutely can not be a game changing variable. *cough GTX 680 and 7970 cough*

What's your excuse for the Techpowerup review? All cards are reference. rolleyes.gif

The Fury is overall a better card than the GTX 980,if you don't want to admit it i could not care less,the results are there,what you think is irrelevant.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 2/6/16 at 1:45am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Hexus] Review: Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Nitro