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 15

post #141 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Yes there is. You say i do not have the idea of what i am talking about,yet you do? Please don't make me laugh anymore. lachen.gif

You can't even use common sense to reach a conclusion. You claim there's only a 10 MHz difference but don't even know there a two Fury Tri-X SKU's. Wich i already mentioned,one at 1000 MHz.

http://www.sapphiretech.com/productdetial.asp?pid=186E1407-85D2-49A4-A7BD-D6D8727F67F1&lang=eng

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/90086-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-nitro/

"The extra size enables Sapphire to increase the core clock to 1,050MHz"



Why do you think there's a difference? Too hard to do the math. rolleyes.gif

Just keep going on preaching on that 7 months old review,not even 2 weeks since Fury X launch. And same day of Fury Pro launch. rolleyes.gif

You have no idea what you are talking about, I have even given you actual points of reference from the same reviewer:



http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/90086-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-nitro/?page=2



http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84512-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc/?page=3

The one Hexus reviews is the 1040MHz model, the Nitro they review is the 1050MHz model. Please stop while you have the chance. The fact that you are keep going just proves the amount of denial you are in.

Of course you won't stop because I'm dealing with AMD Enthusiasts here, so that's a given.

But let's see if I can help open your eyes a bit.

The Nitro Scores a 3,954 in FireStrike ULTRA 4K:



What does Jay's Tri X Score in Firestrike ULTRA 4K:



4,009 higher than the Nitro reviewed in the OP.

So please do tell me how I'm not using "common sense" when you can't even reference anything I post at all without trying to be against it. Please tell me how the "7 month old review" is not accurate, even when in the previous post I didn't even use Jay's video to prove a point yet you are still going against what I'm saying even though we already moved past that point. doh.gif

But I'm the straw man...
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 2/6/16 at 1:55am
post #142 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post


So please do tell me how I'm not using "common sense" when you can't even reference anything I post at all without trying to be against it. Please tell me how the "7 month old review" is not accurate, even when in the previous post I didn't even use Jay's video to prove a point yet you are still going against what I'm saying even though we already moved past that point. doh.gif

But I'm the straw man...
Already seen,my mistake.

I havent moved past anything. My only observation was that you were using a 7 month old review. If you can't see what is wrong with that,i feel bad for you.

I am the one who needs to tell you why it is not accurate? Dude? After god knows how many drivers? Cant you understand it by yourself?

And yes,you're the one pulling mad strawmans. You got called out on using a 7 month old review then procedeed to make some half point about cards not being reference and god knows what,to then end up in this last page discussion that has got nothing to do with anything.

3DMark really does not prove anything since it's a benchmark.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 2/6/16 at 2:05am
post #143 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Already seen,my mistake.

I havent moved past anything. My only observation was that you were using a 7 month old review. If you can't see what is wrong with that,i feel bad for you.

And yes,you're the one pulling mad strawmans. You got called out on using a 7 month old review then procedeed to make some half point about cards not being reference and god knows what,to then end up in this last page discussion that has got nothing to do with anything.

3DMark really does not prove anything since it's a benchmark.

The fact that you still cannot observe there is still nothing wrong with Jay's "7 month old review" as you like to call it, is the problem in and of itself. Go back and look at me compare Hexus' own review of both the Fury Tri-X, and Fury Nitro. There you can see even without looking at Jay's results the cards are still very similar, showing that Jay's review is still relevant to this day when comparing overclock to overclock results (my main argument this entire time).

I would use games as a cross-reference instead of 3DMark but 3DMark Ultra has predetermined settings whereas the settings Jay uses are entirely different than the ones Hexus uses so by using 3DMark Ultra it stays consistent with the comparison I'm trying to make.
post #144 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

The fact that you still cannot observe there is still nothing wrong with Jay's "7 month old review" as you like to call it, is the problem in and of itself. Go back and look at me compare Hexus' own review of both the Fury Tri-X, and Fury Nitro. There you can see even without looking at Jay's results the cards are still very similar, showing that Jay's review is still relevant to this day when comparing overclock to overclock results (my main argument this entire time).

I would use games as a cross-reference instead of 3DMark but 3DMark Ultra has predetermined settings whereas the settings Jay uses are entirely different than the ones Hexus uses so by using 3DMark Ultra it stays consistent with the comparison I'm trying to make.
Hexus is not the only review site that i have linked. I have also posted Techpowerup slides. Got anything to say about those?

Im not even talking about the cards. Im talking about the drivers.

The review you posted is on 15th July,drivers with Fury and Fury X support where 15.7 and 15.7.1

Hexus is using 15.12 and TPU 15.9.1

Gotta also add the gains done thanks to Crimson

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_Crimson_Edition_Drivers/5.html

But obviously nothing wrong using a 7 month old review,with their subsequent outdated drivers. rolleyes.gif
post #145 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Hexus is not the only review site that i have linked. I have also posted Techpowerup slides. Got anything to say about those?

Im not even talking about the cards. Im talking about the drivers.

The review you posted is on 15th July,drivers with Fury and Fury X support where 15.7 and 15.7.1

Hexus is using 15.12 and TPU 15.9.1

I'm talking about overclock vs overclock results, something which will be impossible to Cross-reference using TPU (at least when comparing a Fury to a 980) because when TPU updated their testing suite they also changed how they do overclocking results with certain cards. So since the 980 came out in September 2014 they were reviewing non-reference 980's around that time and then when they did overclocked results they benched @ 1080p, then the Fury launched in July 2015 they changed cards of that tier to be benched @ 1440p instead so it would be much more difficult to use TPU as a reference for overclocked results at least with the 980 vs Fury.

But if you look at the after overclocked results from Hexus with the Nitro using Crimson, compared to the 15.15 on the Tri-X:

Nitro:



3,954 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score.

Tri-X:



3,994 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score

Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:



Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:




You can see that surprisingly with Overclocked Results, the Tri-X still ends up being better even though it is using older drivers. The Crimson 15.12 driver came out December 16th 2015 and the 15.15 beta came out June 16 2015. Which is why I'm trying to explain as far as overclocked vs overclocked results go, Jay's review is still quite fitting to use as a reference today.
Edited by BiG StroOnZ - 2/6/16 at 2:50am
post #146 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

The Crimson 15.12 driver came out December 16th 2015 and the 15.15 beta came out June 16 2015. Which is why I'm trying to explain as far as overclocked vs overclocked results go, Jay's review is still quite fitting to use as a reference today.

Yeah but he's jay. Different people, different testing methodologies. Also personally, I'm well aware that AMD still have to figure out their Dx11 driver... (at least cpu bound parts, and maybe something about the HBM, who knows! And there's the shader scalability issue.)

It just happens that some settings in some games will produce some very different scaling behavior, than what some people get at some point in time.

Sorry if you and the other guy were arguing about something else, or something. The Gigabyte G1 looks sexy on those charts, though!
Edited by Tivan - 2/6/16 at 3:27am
Cute PC
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4930k@4200 Sabertooth x79 R9 290 Tri-X@950/1250 4x4GB@2133CL9 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial BX100 Mugen 4 Win7 Benq xl2411z 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
NEC EA231WMi QPad-MK50 (reds) Seasonic S12G 750 Define R4  
MouseMouse PadAudio
Deathadder 3.5G BE Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Large Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Cute PC
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4930k@4200 Sabertooth x79 R9 290 Tri-X@950/1250 4x4GB@2133CL9 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Crucial BX100 Mugen 4 Win7 Benq xl2411z 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
NEC EA231WMi QPad-MK50 (reds) Seasonic S12G 750 Define R4  
MouseMouse PadAudio
Deathadder 3.5G BE Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Large Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #147 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Hexus is not the only review site that i have linked. I have also posted Techpowerup slides. Got anything to say about those?

Im not even talking about the cards. Im talking about the drivers.

The review you posted is on 15th July,drivers with Fury and Fury X support where 15.7 and 15.7.1

Hexus is using 15.12 and TPU 15.9.1

I'm talking about overclock vs overclock results, something which will be impossible to Cross-reference using TPU (at least when comparing a Fury to a 980) because when TPU updated their testing suite they also changed how they do overclocking results with certain cards. So since the 980 came out in September 2014 they were reviewing non-reference 980's around that time and then when they did overclocked results they benched @ 1080p, then the Fury launched in July 2015 they changed cards of that tier to be benched @ 1440p instead so it would be much more difficult to use TPU as a reference for overclocked results at least with the 980 vs Fury.

But if you look at the after overclocked results from Hexus with the Nitro using Crimson, compared to the 15.15 on the Tri-X: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Nitro:



3,954 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score.

Tri-X:



3,994 total 3DMark Ultra 4K Score

Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:



Fury Nitro:



Fury Tri-X:



You can see that surprisingly with Overclocked Results, the Tri-X still ends up being better even though it is using older drivers. The Crimson 15.12 driver came out December 16th 2015 and the 15.15 beta came out June 16 2015. Which is why I'm trying to explain as far as overclocked vs overclocked results go, Jay's review is still quite fitting to use as a reference today.

I don't know what you and these guys are all on about after the other day, but thanks for posting reviews that show the stock Fury Tri X <5% behind the stock 980 ti, ~10% behind the non reference 980ti Zotac and some 14% behind the G1 980ti. looks very competitive at 4K and with a 14-25% price reduction. and the 980 some 20% back of the stock Fury Tri X and costs the same price. Fury look like a good value card. biggrin.gif
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7ghz Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H EVGA GTX 980TI ACX 2.0  8GB G.Skill Trident X 2400 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 830 SSD 128GB 3TB Toshiba  3TB Toshiba Custom Water 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Window 7 Ultimate 64 bit HP 23xi Corsair HX750i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
Mouse
Logitech G600 
  hide details  
Reply
post #148 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

lots
.

Sorry for causing you to spend a couple of hours researching, formatting, and posting, but this could have all been avoided if you would have acknowledged that for accuracy's sake, you posted an old video of a different GPU; that's not absurd, it isn't worth deflecting, and it doesn't change the fact regardless of your most recent posts. That was my initial issue.

WRT your graphs, the Fury shows to be a wonderful value, performing over the 980 and just under the TI in most circumstances. thumb.gif
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
post #149 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post



4,009 higher than the Nitro reviewed in the OP.

So please do tell me how I'm not using "common sense" when you can't even reference anything I post at all without trying to be against it. Please tell me how the "7 month old review" is not accurate, even when in the previous post I didn't even use Jay's video to prove a point yet you are still going against what I'm saying even though we already moved past that point. doh.gif

But I'm the straw man...

Check this out, my stock Fury X on a 6700k @ 4.6GHZ: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7466718
3905 graphics score

Same Fury X @ stock clocks, 4.6GHZ 6700k, but now my score is 4343: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7466924

Don't hang your hat on Firestrike's results.
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
post #150 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tivan View Post

Yeah but he's jay. Different people, different testing methodologies. Also personally, I'm well aware that AMD still have to figure out their Dx11 driver... (at least cpu bound parts, and maybe something about the HBM, who knows! And there's the shader scalability issue.)

It just happens that some settings in some games will produce some very different scaling behavior, than what some people get at some point in time.

Sorry if you and the other guy were arguing about something else, or something. The Gigabyte G1 looks sexy on those charts, though!

I understand nothing is perfect, but it gives a good representation of how an overclocked 980 compares to an overclocked R9 Fury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureBlackFire View Post

I don't know what you and these guys are all on about after the other day, but thanks for posting reviews that show the stock Fury Tri X <5% behind the stock 980 ti, ~10% behind the non reference 980ti Zotac and some 14% behind the G1 980ti. looks very competitive at 4K and with a 14-25% price reduction. and the 980 some 20% back of the stock Fury Tri X and costs the same price. Fury look like a good value card. biggrin.gif

But that chart has a Tri X overclocked with mostly every other card at stock, including the 980. Don't you see how that is not overclocked vs overclocked results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLCLimax View Post

Wow, still going on like your lives depend on this petty internet fued. And i'm laughing hard right now at the guy who really got the big mess rolling by getting mad when someone said the Fury was close to the 980ti at 4K and a good value...and he proceeds to post charts showing just that.

Overclocked vs overclocked the 980 Ti will surely take itself even further away than even an OC Fury, as the 980 Ti has even more headroom after overclocked. Where these charts just have the Fury OC'ed. Find it funny how people flip flop to a different, not connected straw man argument. Knowing that the Fury is the only card that is overclocked in these charts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4inkill3r View Post

Sorry for causing you to spend a couple of hours researching, formatting, and posting, but this could have all been avoided if you would have acknowledged that for accuracy's sake, you posted an old video of a different GPU; that's not absurd, it isn't worth deflecting, and it doesn't change the fact regardless of your most recent posts. That was my initial issue.

WRT your graphs, the Fury shows to be a wonderful value, performing over the 980 and just under the TI in most circumstances. thumb.gif

But everything I posted proved that the video is still accurate yet the actual straw man arguments in this thread now are quite astonishing. Instead of agreeing with my point that Jay's video is still accurate, you then impose some radical idea that I somehow proved the Fury is a wonderful value when it is the only card in the charts being overclocked while every other card is stock. As if that has any logic. You say I'm deflecting when it is quite apparent who is deflecting. Just look at the new argument that has developed. Quite hilarious. AMD enthusiasts never admit when they are wrong, just flip-flop and side-step to a new argument every time they get disproved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhell View Post

Guys this is the correct image. Now his posts make a sense.


Guys, in the charts the Fury is overclocked but every other card is stock, but somehow that proves something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

Impending perceived emotional trauma.

Apparent and obvious logical fallacies have officially entered the thread, all sense has been thrown out the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4inkill3r View Post

Check this out, my stock Fury X on a 6700k @ 4.6GHZ: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7466718
3905 graphics score

Same Fury X @ stock clocks, 4.6GHZ 6700k, but now my score is 4343: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7466924

Don't hang your hat on Firestrike's results.

I think it is just a case that, when someone provides a compelling argument against any AMD product, there has to be a way in which it is incorrect when dealing with AMD Enthusiasts. Because if there is ever a situation when the product is questioned, it is automatically assumed that this person is attacking the AMD Enthusiast on a personal level, not simply questioning the product, as it seems AMD Enthusiasts hold a dire connection to the company unlike any other Enthusiast where they all band together regardless of the scenario to make sure that the product itself (even when they are wrong and have been clearly proven wrong) is not examined or questioned in any way unless it is praised.

Look at the stock Firestrike 4K results for Jay's Tri-X and the Nitro, they are also quite similar as well (actually the Tri-X is a bit higher):



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