Overclock.net banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

[TT] AMD's air-cooled Radeon R9 Fury specs leaked (Now with Official Specs)

Jump to Latest
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 278 Posts
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane2207 View Post

The 680 was released in March 2012.....
Click to expand...
He misspelled 980 c:

Funny nonetheless
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#24 ·
I wonder with what solutions 3rd parties will come up with. I mean it's a HBM GPU, so the board will be shorter, which means no room for 3 fans. I wouldn't like to see GTX 670 type of solution:

 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tivan View Post

I think going by MSRP for other camp MSRP choices should be a thing. I mean sure you can get second hand from amazon for 420, but yeah. You will see fury warehouse deals at a similar markdown percentage from the MSRP, as well, sometime down the road.
Click to expand...
those are brandnew, 980 are just that cheaper of a deal, and its why 390X is priced $430 MSRP.

though on that note, 10% slower than Fury X means around ~10% faster than 390X, and costs a wooping $120 more?
whenever i think of their perf/$ placement all i end up thinking is they shot themselves on the foot by going with HBM...
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#27 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

those are brandnew, 980 are just that cheaper of a deal, and its why 390X is priced $430 MSRP.

though on that note, 10% slower than Fury X means around ~10% faster than 390X, and costs a wooping $120 more?
whenever i think of their perf/$ placement all i end up thinking is they shot themselves on the foot by going with HBM...
Click to expand...
Damn I hadn't thought about it like that yet, I was hoping Fury was going to be next for me.

There's a good chance that custom cooler/PCB models will overclock better then the X does so far. If the Fury can be made to push near or past the stock Fury X like the 980TI with the Titan X it would be a good deal still.
 
#28 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

What kind of backward thinking is that?
Click to expand...
I've seen that attitude to HBM a lot of times on OCN it's a little disturbing to know tech enthusiasts don't want tech to move forward.

They also don't realise how much a 4096 processor GCN board would've used in power consumption without HBM and a few other little tweaks AMD was able to do with fury.
 
#29 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

Shot themselves in the foot 'cause of HBM
What kind of backward thinking is that?
Click to expand...
umm, yes?

its simply due to the cost overhead of HBM, sure they would've gained on performance and power consumption aspect while leading in the technological front.
but due to it they couldn't lower their price to gain leverage in performance per dollar, in which they now sit awkwardly at the fore-front with noticeably lower cost efficiency.

they could've went with HBM on their flagship alone as a trial run, being a flagship at least justifies their innate high cost.
but on a lesser chip they should've temporarily stuck with GDDR5 to mitigate cost and be able to attack with aggressive pricing.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#30 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Ryback View Post

I've seen that attitude to HBM a lot of times on OCN it's a little disturbing to know tech enthusiasts don't want tech to move forward.

They also don't realise how much a 4096 processor GCN board would've used in power consumption without HBM and a few other little tweaks AMD was able to do with fury.
Click to expand...
it happens in other scenarios . . . where some only think of the present. what's good for the today and fail to see what the future holds. AMD introduced GDDR5 and benefits us even today.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#31 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

it happens in other scenarios . . . where some only think of the present. what's good for the today and fail to see what the future holds. AMD introduced GDDR5 and benefits us even today.
Click to expand...
but thats a different scenario, GDDR5 contributed enough performance boost to mitigate the price overhead.
at least they had a good price point with their cards, with an emphasis on "good".
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#32 ·
$549 is too much for this card.
There are overclocked 980`s for $520-550 that can come pretty close to the card I bet

AMD needs to go lower than Nvidia cards like they always previously have done. AMD seems way too cocky when they are so far behind Nvidia in market share.

Fury X: $549
R9 Nano: $500
Fury; $449

Thats what they should cost. Who on earth though
Fury X: $649 vs 980Ti $649
Fury: $549 vs 980 OC: $550

was a good idea? Have they lost it?
 
#33 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

$549 is too much for this card.
There are overclocked 980`s for $520-550 that can come pretty close to the card I bet
Click to expand...
theres already 980 that can come too close to Fury X, specially in 1080P.

AMD seriously needs to get rid of that voltage lock on Fury X.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#35 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

$549 is too much for this card.
There are overclocked 980`s for $520-550 that can come pretty close to the card I bet

AMD needs to go lower than Nvidia cards like they always previously have done. AMD seems way too cocky when they are so far behind Nvidia in market share.

Fury X: $549
R9 Nano: $500
Fury; $449

Thats what they should cost. Who on earth though
Fury X: $649 vs 980Ti $649
Fury: $549 vs 980 OC: $550

was a good idea? Have they lost it?
Click to expand...
Agree on FX vs TX, but who would chose 980 in front of Fury (except fanboys ofc)? That's like 7970 vs 680, or even worse in this case for NV.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#36 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Agree on FX vs TX, but who would chose 980 in front of Fury (except fanboys ofc)? That's like 7970 vs 680, or even worse in this case for NV.
Click to expand...
performance should speak for themselves though, if the card is faster then thats the better choice.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#37 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Agree on FX vs TX, but who would chose 980 in front of Fury (except fanboys ofc)? That's like 7970 vs 680, or even worse in this case for NV.
Click to expand...
Why is it bad to pick 980s? They are equally power efficient as Fury, they overclock extremely well while Fury havent shown much promise there yet. OC Fury vs additional overclock on the $550 980s should be close too I think. MIS 980 4G or EVGA Superclocked have very good cooling as well.

Of course if Fury gets better OC it changes things.
 
#38 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Why is it bad to pick 980s? They are equally power efficient as Fury, they overclock extremely well while Fury havent shown much promise there yet. OC Fury vs additional overclock on the $550 980s should be close too I think. MIS 980 4G or EVGA Superclocked have very good cooling as well.

Of course if Fury gets better OC it changes things.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I doubt 980 will catch Fury @1440p (and these are rly 1440p cards, not 1080p or 4k). And we all know that Fury will age like wine. It's just a beefier card. 980 has been tweaked nearly to it's max.
 
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#39 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Firstly, I doubt 980 will catch Fury @1440p (and these are rly 1440p cards, not 1080p or 4k). And we all know that Fury will age like wine. It's just a beefier card. 980 has been tweaked nearly to it's max.
Click to expand...
i dunno about that.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

4K:
Fury X = 102%
Fury = 92%
390X = 81%
ref 980 = 80%

1440P:
Fury X = 104%
Fury = 94%
ref 980 = 87%
390X = 84%

1080P:
Fury X = 103%
ref 980 = 95%
Fury = 93%
390X = 87%

980 is simply way too close at 1440P, if we look at it purely on TDP headroom alone, 980 has the advantage of overclocking headroom.
not to mention theres plenty of good non-ref coolers for 980 at around $500 and even less.
also, if Fury is gonna be $550 MSRP as they say, KINGPIN at face value would be over $650.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: iLeakStuff
Save
Rep+ Rep+
#40 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

i dunno about that.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

4K:
Fury X = 102%
Fury = 92%
390X = 81%
ref 980 = 80%

1440P:
Fury X = 104%
Fury = 94%
ref 980 = 87%
390X = 84%

1080P:
Fury X = 103%
ref 980 = 95%
Fury = 93%
390X = 87%

980 is simply way too close at 1440P, if we look at it purely on TDP headroom alone, 980 has the advantage of overclocking headroom.
not to mention theres plenty of good non-ref coolers for 980 at around $500 and even less.
also, if Fury is gonna be $550 MSRP as they say, KINGPIN at face value would be over $650.
Click to expand...
Yup, pretty much what I see too. At 1440p Fury and 980 OC models should be fairly close.


This 980 will surpass the Fury I think.
This 980 matching it
This one too

All of those matching AMD in price/performance. I`m not sure why AMD suddenly thinks they can go from better performance/dollar vs Nvidia which resulted in 20% market share to equal performance/dollar and hope it turns the ship around.

Either they are acting stupid and just waiting to go off a cliff and finally get bought off by another company, or they think they are able to build a premium brand with the Fury cards. Which I think Nvidia is in a far too strong position to do
 
21 - 40 of 278 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
277 Replies
57 Participants
Last post:
Alatar
Overclock.net
posts
28M
members
562K
Since
2004
The premier forum for overclocking experts and enthusiasts. Discuss hardware optimization, custom builds, benchmarking, cooling solutions, and pushing the boundaries of computing performance. From beginner guides to extreme overclocking, join our technical community to master system tuning.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Intel CPUs Hardware News NVIDIA PC Gaming Water Cooling