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 8

post #71 of 179
I would rather see a dual fan solution that ends at the PCB. I don't care for the hangover. Just a pet peeve that's all thumb.gif
post #72 of 179
DrFPS, you should READ more. That page is performance/$ not absolute performance.

Look on the previous page for this info...






from the same article...
http://wccftech.com/multi-gpu-nvidia-sli-amd-crossfire-performance-value-comparison/
Edited by KarathKasun - 1/31/16 at 3:51pm
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
Reply
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

GTX 980 Ti = 19 Single -> 35 SLi = 84% scaling (from a laughable 1.84~ to 84% conversion).

He just divided 35 by 19 so he's considering 35 (ie, the aftermath of a previous operation) as base for his calculations. Now look what he is presenting instead of scaling:

(19*1) + (19*0.84~) = 19 + 16 = 35

He's doing it backwards and considering the SLI/CF results as 100% and then picking whatever he wants because he doesn't know what he's doing.
There's no other way to interpret these data. You can't pick whatever you want and the easier and only one with any academic worth in this case is the base. So with each set of data you're looking at a different target for perfect scaling. First 100%, then 50%, then 33%, then ... Excuse me but that's bollocks.

 

I get your point. 

 

So with the example of:

 

Single card - 33fps

Dual card - 66fps

 

The scaling would be 100%, which we can both agree on. 

 

Now with a third card scaling to 90fps, dividing 90 by 33 now isn't going to be representative of the data captured (because that would yield a figure of 2.727x, or 73%). You're saying that I should instead do this:

 

90 / 99 = 0.90 = 90% scaling

 

But this sounds confusing to average Joe. So how would I express this to someone who's math isn't their strong point? The mathematically correct figure is a 2.9x improvement, or 290% the performance of a single-card system. But if I multiply 33fps by 2.9, I get 95.7, which isn't what I'm seeing in the benchmark.

 

This all seems to work as expected when I get a result that is higher than 100% scaling for a dual-GPU setup. Lets say I get 70fps with a two-card system. According to the numbers, this works out like so:

 

70 / 66 = 1.06

70 / 33 = 2.12

 

Some sites would represent this as a 106% increase in performance. Others would say that's an increase of 2.12x, or a 212% improvement, over a single GPU. Both would be right. Multiplying 33 by 2.12 results in 69.96fps (expected since I'm rounding off).

 

Forgive me if I'm presenting a viewpoint that appears dumb - I'm trying to work out how I should represent data that the average person will be able to understand. Feel free to correct my fuzzy math and help improve how I relate things to my readers.

post #74 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post

World of Warcraft? Really?

One of the most popular games in the world, notably graphically demanding (MSAA, supersampling available), isn't easy to run super well in all situations and exposes huge dx11 driver CPU performance difference between Nvidia and AMD. Why would you NOT test it?

Quote:
Others would say that's an increase of 2.12x, or a 212% improvement

Increasing to 2.12x is a 112% improvement.

100 + 112% = 212% (2.12x)
Edited by Cyro999 - 1/31/16 at 5:02pm
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

One of the most popular games in the world, notably graphically demanding (MSAA, supersampling available), isn't easy to run super well in all situations and exposes huge dx11 driver CPU performance difference between Nvidia and AMD. Why would you NOT test it?

Has AMD even bothered to optimize for WoW?
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 #76 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Has AMD even bothered to optimize for WoW?

It's not for WoW specifically, it's well known that Nvidia uses way less CPU resources per frame especially since april 2014. Shows up in quite a few games, engines and even dedicated benchmarks. WoW is just one of the most popular games where it's a huge deal and you can't use AMD graphics if you want performance anywhere near what's possible as a 960 will give way better min FPS than a Fury X, especially when lots of players are involved.

AMD focused on Mantle and presumably dx12/vulkan rather than making the improvements that nvidia made to dx11 CPU requirements. It's been one of their biggest failings for the last year and a half frown.gif
Edited by Cyro999 - 1/31/16 at 4:56pm
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by CataclysmZA View Post


Single card - 33fps
Dual card - 66fps

The scaling would be 100%, which we can both agree on. 

Now with a third card scaling to 90fps, dividing 90 by 33 now isn't going to be representative of the data captured (because that would yield a figure of 2.727x, or 73%). You're saying that I should instead do this:

90 / 99 = 0.91 = 91% scaling(added proper rounding for consistency. It's not that important though.)

Actually, it's perfectly fine to do 90/33. You just cannot convert 2.727 into 73%. 2.727 is not 73%, it's ~273%. Cutting of the first digit makes no sense in any regard, if any reporter does that, I'd be very surprised, and they probably failed their maths class at some point, or had a lapse of mental awareness. You can't just drop relevant digits. Could also just drop the .7 part and go like it totally scales by 203%! then.

Anyhow. with the ~273%, we can then divide that by 3 (due to 300%=perfect scaling) and get to that ~91% scaling figure (where 100%=perfect scaling), as well.

At the end of the day, whether we call it 273% or 91% isn't all that important. Just need to keep the maths correct.

Translating the numbers KarathKasun posted into a 100%=perfect scaling world, we'd get
Nvidia QuadSLI: 283/400 = 70.75% scaling
AMD Quadfire: 313/400 = 78.25% scaling
by the way.

Of course there's probably a wide spread with different games.

edit: there's also a point to be made about comparing 2 way setups to 3 way setups, since running 2 cards has better scaling than 3. If you want to see how much more performance adding a third card would add, sticking to the AMD numbers KarathKasun provided, you'd want to do something like:
260/187 = 139% new performance (where 100% is 2way crossfire, without perfect scaling.)
=> 39% more performance (from 2 way to 3 way)
edit: and I wouldn't use the term perfect scaling in the context of even 50% here, 50% scaling would only be 'perfect', in the sense that it'd continue the imperfect scaling of 2-way crossfire perfectly.
There's multiple ways to get to the same numbers, anyhow.

As long as they make sense, I don't mind people using different comparisons to highlight different stuff. I've heard of plenty games that scale quite badly to the third card, so in that case, it'd be handy to have someone who takes that under the scope.

If you want to present a more harsh reality, you'll stick with perfect scaling as it is assumed with the single card config, to describe the third card's added performance, by the way.
First card = 100; second card = 187 - 100 = 87 ; third card = 260 - 100 - 87 = 73. Which will tell us, that the third card you add to the testing cycle, will only add 73% the performance on average, compared to what you'd get from the card if it is run alone.

But still, running 3 of em is 39% more performance than running two of em, as we learned earlier. (the fact that running two of em doesn't have perfect scaling to begin with, makes this view more generous. Since the imperfect scaling of two way crossfire is our baseline, here. Be warry if someone's using different baseline methodology for different camps in the same article, but otherwise I don't see an issue.)
Edited by Tivan - 1/31/16 at 5:41pm
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 #78 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

It's not for WoW specifically, it's well known that Nvidia uses way less CPU resources per frame especially since april 2014. Shows up in quite a few games, engines and even dedicated benchmarks. WoW is just one of the most popular games where it's a huge deal and you can't use AMD graphics if you want performance anywhere near what's possible as a 960 will give way better min FPS than a Fury X, especially when lots of players are involved.

AMD focused on Mantle and presumably dx12/vulkan rather than making the improvements that nvidia made to dx11 CPU requirements. It's been one of their biggest failings for the last year and a half frown.gif

Most people that buy Fury X are not looking at WoW benchmarks. I don't think many people upgrade so they can play WoW.
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 #79 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Most people that buy Fury X are not looking at WoW benchmarks. I don't think many people upgrade so they can play WoW.

WoW's still a decent reference. That's owed to the fact that nobody seems to benchmark recent MMOs or online games. (edit: though considering at least a couple of people might look to get a new GPU for Blade and Soul, and that game's in Dx9, using a WoW benchmark might skew the picture in a false direction. Since AMD and Nvidia are pretty close on Dx9 perf, from my limited testing. So yeah, need more benchmarks!)
Edited by Tivan - 1/31/16 at 6:05pm
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 #80 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarathKasun View Post

Then explain to me how some games actually get ABOVE 100% scaling? I know its not common, but it happens.

This is for the Fury X...
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/398067-fury-x-crossfire-almost-100-scaling-4k-33/

Hell, old school 3Dfx SLI was nearly 100% scaling if you had the CPU power to push it.

Try reading the thread next time.

How many years have you had experience with crossfire or sli?

LOL enough said. The experience you have is from reading? And reading only.
Keep reading. Games above 100% scaling your funny. It's not common because it doesn't happen, ever. $$$$Prove it.

If a game can run above 100% scaling. Than that is saying that game doesn't even need video hardware at all? So if it's 110% above scaling that means you can still get 10% frame rate with NO GPU's, at all LOL.
Try that.


The second video card only adds about 60%. Go buy another one.
Here is proof. These are not some made up bla bla reviewer that's getting paid to show a product in the best light ever. This is OCN. It's what we do here. I've broken world records in sli, more than once.
overclock.net Top Haven scores
http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores

I don't have to keep reading. I've been doing it for over eight years, benchmarking and playing games. I'm not trying to get you buy hardware. What i'm telling is the facts from my !!!!experience!!!!
Single GPU top score
Quote:
Member CPU GPU FPS Score
MrTOOSHORT 4930K GTX Titan X 119.9 3019 2811
>>>>>score 3019

Quote:
Orthello 5820K GTX Titan X
214.9 5414 2943
>>2 GPU's>>>top SLI score>>>>> 5414 = 55 % increase in score, or performance, the exact same thing I've been telling you.
Edited by DrFPS - 2/1/16 at 6:12pm
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
MyCleanPC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS MAXIMUS VI EVGA master blaster Corsair Vengence  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OCZ SSD raid0 samsung Win 7 Samsung 
PowerCase
Enermax rev 1050 Stacker 832 
  hide details  
Reply
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