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 5

post #41 of 179
Most don't seem to realize the Fury is ahead in the filtering department. Select MSAA+EQAA and the EQAA setting takes NO vram hit, transforms MSAA into a transparency antialiasing capable filter which is omitted in Maxwell. Though, frame rate testing of the OLDEST methodology, now depreciated, does not illuminate any outstanding qualities for any cards involved, surely it must be the wishes of the reviewer to come up with such a defunct result. Haven't we already entered and already well gone through the latency testing era? What good is averages when "Frame Synchronization" has had its own full feature via Variable Refresh Rate? I'd argue we would start making quite a lot of sense just by dumping the Techpowerup Suite and starting a new latency ‘99p’ charts series, not to find the highest average while skewing the results in favour of those ‘older’ pre-VRR age titles, but according to mean VRR latency response that better suits this day and age.
Edited by mtcn77 - 1/31/16 at 8:17am
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 #42 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tojara View Post

Anandtech, Tom's, Guru3d, Hardwarecanucks, etc. They're by no means perfect, but for the majority of time run benchmarks that make sense. Many other sites do great job from time to time.

Features like that shouldn't be disabled, as long as the game is actually playable with them. If it isn't, you should start disabling or lowering them to make the game playable, which will often change how the cards stack up, and that's my entire point.

And absolutely, apples-to-apples comparisons are still the most relevant for most people and because of that the cards tested shouldn't be massively apart in performance. Comparing a 750 ti to a, say, 390 is rarely worthwhile as you would usually turn the settings up on the latter as the framerate would typically be well over the refresh rate if the 750 ti was benchmarked at settings that were playable. The same also applies the other way around when the slower cards could be chocked to death by a whole number of things. Due to that comparing cards at entirely different performance ranges is utterly pointless if the other one isn't capable of running the benchmark properly, it is useless information.

The only one I'm aware of that gives you playable settings for each card is Hardocp. But unless your system is the same exact configuration as Hardocp, you are still going to have to make adjustments anyway. Plus what they consider playable isn't necessarily what you or I would consider playable.

As for cards being compared, he gives you all the numbers in the performance summary. But if you look at the test itself, the latest 980 Ti review had the lowest card as the 970. On his 390 test, the lowest card tested was the 380. If he has the card on hand and a new driver, he will retest instead of using older results.

The apples to apples comparison is really and truly the only fair way to compare cards.
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 179
Warning.

Up until this last page, we were having a decent discussion in this thread up until a couple users decided that debating another person's opinion wasn't as important as hurling insults at them.

If you cannot debate without getting personal, please do not try.

Any other name calling in this thread is going to see you removed from it.

For those of you who know how to treat others with respect, ignore this message.
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Upstairs Rig
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Maximus VI Hero evga 1080 Ti with Hybrid mod Corsair Vengeance Pro 2133 mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO 500gb WD Caviar Black Corsair h100i GTX Windows 8.1 64bit 
MonitorPowerCase
xb280hk EVGA Supernova 1000 G2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureBlackFire View Post

the Fury is a great value. it really matches the 980ti at 4k.

Is this a joke? The Fury is a terrible value, it often gets outpaced by an overclocked 980. Comparing it to 980 Ti is about the most senseless thing I've ever seen done on the internet.



It is 26.6% slower than a non-reference 980 Ti @ 4K. Basically any 980 Ti people buy today is going to be non-reference. After you overclock the 980 Ti it is then 36.5% slower than a 980 Ti:


you're the one joking. the chart you posted shows the stock Fury being right behind the 980ti relative to the massively factory overclocked Zotac model (79%/82%) and way ahead of the GTX 980 (66%) at 4K. then you post a chart from a 4+ year old game that ran better on nvidia cards since launch, at a lower resolution no less. the Sapphire nitro Fury is some 5% faster than the one in this chart out of the box, so if indeed you get the highest clocked 980ti on air from the factory, oc some more (YMMV), you'll have a card 30% faster than this Sapphire Fury at 4K for only 30% more cost. sounds perfect. the Fury blows the 980 away at 4K and matches a stock 980ti. that's what you call a bad value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro3ootector View Post

I will risk saying, this is the coolest most awesome GPU AMD and Sapphire have made so far.
This review is done with latest drivers for this card. Relative performance of TPU pretty much confirms that Fury is close to reference 980Ti.

it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

Most don't seem to realize the Fury is ahead in the filtering department. Select MSAA+EQAA and the EQAA setting takes NO vram hit, transforms MSAA into a transparency antialiasing capable filter which is omitted in Maxwell. Though, frame rate testing of the OLDEST methodology, now depreciated, does not illuminate any outstanding qualities for any cards involved, surely it must be the wishes of the reviewer to come up with such a defunct result. Haven't we already entered and already well gone through the latency testing era? What good is averages when "Frame Synchronization" has had its own full feature via Variable Refresh Rate? I'd argue we would start making quite a lot of sense just by dumping the Techpowerup Suite and starting a new latency ‘99p’ charts series, not to find the highest average while skewing the results in favour of those ‘older’ pre-VRR age titles, but according to mean VRR latency response that better suits this day and age.

I don't think the test suite needs changing. at the end of the day it's still a controlled test that shows relative performance between the cards under the same conditions. good enough for me.

is this version safe enough for you mcg75?
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 #45 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slink3Slyde View Post

I see where you are coming from guys, mid range and older cards could be tested at lowered settings, I can understand that point.

Where I was getting lost is how that's relevant to the Nitro Fury review which is AMD's second best card.

The point is and will always be the diminishing returns of some settings or why a GTX 950 is tested @ Ultra settings when that doesn't make any sense. Or the inconsistency of the game suite with some games included/excluded by their popularity/technical prowess.

It may be a single setting that doesn't affect the IQ at all the culprit of the game running like a dog (viewing distance in Dying Light) or a massive difference between two similar cards (insane hair tess in The Witcher 3). Not giving any reasons for each setting and wholeassing it by choosing a preset is as lazy as it can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slink3Slyde View Post

I still stand by TPU as the best site for comparing the high end.

Best != Good

I'm the best runner in my family and that doesn't mean that I'm any good.
post #46 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureBlackFire View Post

you're the one joking. the chart you posted shows the stock Fury being right behind the 980ti relative to the massively factory overclocked Zotac model (79%/82%) and way ahead of the GTX 980 (66%) at 4K. then you post a chart from a 4+ year old game that ran better on nvidia cards since launch, at a lower resolution no less. the Sapphire nitro Fury is some 5% faster than the one in this chart out of the box, so if indeed you get the highest clocked 980ti on air from the factory, oc some more (YMMV), you'll have a card 30% faster than this Sapphire Fury at 4K for only 30% more cost. sounds perfect. the Fury blows the 980 away at 4K and matches a stock 980ti. that's what you call a bad value?
it does.
I don't think the test suite needs changing. at the end of the day it's still a controlled test that shows relative performance between the cards under the same conditions. good enough for me.

is this version safe enough for you mcg75?

I love 280X vs GTX780 @ 4K lol.
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
post #47 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

The point is and will always be the diminishing returns of some settings or why a GTX 950 is tested @ Ultra settings when that doesn't make any sense. Or the inconsistency of the game suite with some games included/excluded by their popularity/technical prowess.

It may be a single setting that doesn't affect the IQ at all the culprit of the game running like a dog (viewing distance in Dying Light) or a massive difference between two similar cards (insane hair tess in The Witcher 3).

Not giving any reasons for each setting and wholeassing it by choosing a preset is as lazy as it can get.
Best != Good

I'm the best runner in my family and that doesn't mean that I'm any good.

I think I agreed with you already on the mid range and lower cards thing already, that makes sense to me. I can believe how the different cards might react more or less positively to certain features being disabled, its something I'm sure we've all done when trying to run a new game on a mid range or slightly outdated card.

However, they do disable hairworks in TW 3 for example, run GTA 5 with MSAA off, they dont just run everything maxed with no regard, if there's a setting that kills everything they appear to recognize and compensate for that in some way.

Nowhere is going to be perfect. This is the internet theres always going to be a way to pick holes, but I still feel that their results are on a level playing field for all cards, and as such are a good gauge of relative performance.

If people are feeling that they have an Nvidia bias, I'd say as has been pointed out, that Kepler based cards certainly dont appear to be having their numbers massaged at all. TPU tests appear to also show the 390/390x doing pretty well at their price point.

*Not affiliated or associated with TPU in anyway
post #48 of 179
Why are we discussing a website who mediates results without a single common variable in question in the thread of a very commendable site that probably started "Price per Performance" benchmarking?rolleyes.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 #49 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slink3Slyde View Post

I think I agreed with you already on the mid range and lower cards thing already, that makes sense to me. I can believe how the different cards might react more or less positively to certain features being disabled, its something I'm sure we've all done when trying to run a new game on a mid range or slightly outdated card.

However, they do disable hairworks in TW 3 for example, run GTA 5 with MSAA off, they dont just run everything maxed with no regard, if there's a setting that kills everything they appear to recognize and compensate for that in some way.

Again, check any of the GTX 950 reviews. Ultra settings and 20 FPS galore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slink3Slyde View Post

If people are feeling that they have an Nvidia bias, I'd say as has been pointed out, that Kepler based cards certainly dont appear to be having their numbers massaged at all. TPU tests appear to also show the 390/390x doing pretty well at their price point.

Never said such thing. I just questioned their methodology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77 View Post

Why are we discussing a website who mediates results without a single common variable in question in the thread of a very commendable site that probably started "Price per Performance" benchmarking?rolleyes.gif

I'm really afraid of running numbers to find that TPU didn't normalize their results and all those index are just a sum of all the games FPS combined. Meaning that 200 FPS in WoW @ 1080p would weight way more than 60 FPS in GTA V @ 1080p. After getting to know that PCPer doesn't know how to interpret their own data and people at these forums are fine with that everything is possible. NVM, they're doing it right.
Edited by Imouto - 1/31/16 at 10:57am
post #50 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

Again, check any of the GTX 950 reviews. Ultra settings and 20 FPS galore.

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slink3Slyde View Post

I think I agreed with you already on the mid range and lower cards thing already, that makes sense to me. I can believe how the different cards might react more or less positively to certain features being disabled, its something I'm sure we've all done when trying to run a new game on a mid range or slightly outdated card.


thumb.gif
[/I]

However we are currently talking about how relevant their benchmarks are towards the Fury. Most people paying 500 dollars or Euros for their GPU would be planning on running as close to ultra settings as possible in all games, I would imagine.

I'd fully support them re adjusting their settings to high with no AA for example on mid range card comparisons, as it is though it is an easier way of keeping all testing consistent so that they can compare all cards on the same playing field. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell exactly how much better the top end cards were all things being equal.

I dont think we can appreciate exactly how many hours go into running these tests, running them twice with different settings would be a serious challenge, and I wouldnt want to be the one to do it.
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