Pro3ootector
The review fails to show this card versus a stock Fury which was the only comparison I truly wanted.
pretty nice I guess, tough for the price it's asking, it's more expensive than some of 980Ti at local stores in my town.
Quote:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/30.html
Here's close to what you want. The Nitro has a 10 Mhz faster core clock than the Tri-X did. So the results will be very close.Originally Posted by Particle
The review fails to show this card versus a stock Fury which was the only comparison I truly wanted.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/30.html
No temperature data of any kind, Really? So it doesn't OC that well and we have no idea of the actual coolers performance. Meh review
Quote:
Lol. how is that even possible?Originally Posted by Luciferxy
pretty nice I guess, tough for the price it's asking, it's more expensive than some of 980Ti at local stores in my town.
dunno man, could be price gouging due to HBM, import fee or else
![confusedsmiley.png]( "confusedsmiley.png")
although those Ti that are cheaper are considered 'budget ones' while this Nitro is somewhat premium class.
although those Ti that are cheaper are considered 'budget ones' while this Nitro is somewhat premium class.
Quote:
Firestrike Extreme
Fury: 7862
Classy: 7244
Firestrike Performance
Fury: 19413
Classy: 21285
Crysis 2
1600p
Fury: 73.2 fps
Classy: 72.5 fps
1080p
Fury: 94.6 fps
Classy: 91.4 fps
Tried to find comparable numbers from TPU but they seem to run BF3 at 1080p with the GTX 980s and 1440p with the Furys for their OC tests. If we apply the 12.8% gains to the 1440p regular results in BF3 the results are about the same.
BF3
1080p
Fury: 150 fps (estimated +6.4%)
Matrix 1536 Mhz: 159 fps
1440p
Fury: 101.5 fps
Classy 1536 Mhz: 98.7 fps (estimated +12.6%)
Last time I checked the GTX 980 was 460€ for the cheapest in town and 480€ for the cheapest Fury so it really comes down to brand preference or what you're going to play. I also don't know if every single GTX 980 can hit 1500 Mhz.
If you actually read the review and parse data with the GTX 980 Classified review you will find that they have the same performance with the classy clocked at 1600 Mhz.Originally Posted by Tobe404
Plus I'm pretty sure a highly OCd 980 would still win, be cheaper as well.
Firestrike Extreme
Fury: 7862
Classy: 7244
Firestrike Performance
Fury: 19413
Classy: 21285
Crysis 2
1600p
Fury: 73.2 fps
Classy: 72.5 fps
1080p
Fury: 94.6 fps
Classy: 91.4 fps
Tried to find comparable numbers from TPU but they seem to run BF3 at 1080p with the GTX 980s and 1440p with the Furys for their OC tests. If we apply the 12.8% gains to the 1440p regular results in BF3 the results are about the same.
BF3
1080p
Fury: 150 fps (estimated +6.4%)
Matrix 1536 Mhz: 159 fps
1440p
Fury: 101.5 fps
Classy 1536 Mhz: 98.7 fps (estimated +12.6%)
Last time I checked the GTX 980 was 460€ for the cheapest in town and 480€ for the cheapest Fury so it really comes down to brand preference or what you're going to play. I also don't know if every single GTX 980 can hit 1500 Mhz.
Right now you can pick up a nitro fury OC for $489 at the same price as 980's here in the US.
Except for power consumption this is a winner. Nitro fury's beefed up circuitry, 8 layer PCB and TriX cooling has over all better performance gaming @ 1440 & 4K, cool temperatures, quiet acoustics and greater memory bandwidth than 980.
I have a nitro fury overclocked 150 MHz on the Core gaming stable @ 1150 MHz with +96 mV. Without any voltage at all can keep 1100 MHz on the core gaming stable.
Fiji is a cool chip, without fans this idles 33C. If you like you can turn on fans at 30% fan speed and it keeps idle at 26C-27C. TriX cooling is acoustically quieter then anything I've owned before on air which Includes ACX cooling.
Without overclocked memory, with added voltage for the Core OC I've seen 62C with the 62% fan speed after hours of gaming. Without any voltage added 58C 58% fan speed.
Soon I may toggle the BIOS switch and see what she does which allows for higher temps, higher OC but I'm not fond of higher temp. Naturally I benched this higher at 1175 MHz but I don't put weight into that. Gaming stable is what counts to me.
Over clocking HBM memory seems to be the down side as a 50 MHz OC raise temps about 5C gaming and 3C idle. It did provide 3-5 FPS but I've decided the gains were not as beneficial at the cost of higher temperatures. I don't consider it as important to OC memory when I already have this type of memory bandwidth anyway.
It was a shame air cooled Fury didn't come out at same time 980 launched. A lot of missed sales for AMD. King of the hill crown with Nvidia TI or above but under that there are now a couple better choices and finally priced competitively, one being with air cooled Fury over a 980 IMO. However Nvidia already saturated the market with no contest and will hype pascal for the next 6 months to keep perspective buyers to hold off.
None the less any cards at this performance / price range is nice for me moving forward. Also not sure why other AIB's like MSI Gaming didn't come out.
http://wccftech.com/review/sapphire-r9-fury-nitro-review/
Except for power consumption this is a winner. Nitro fury's beefed up circuitry, 8 layer PCB and TriX cooling has over all better performance gaming @ 1440 & 4K, cool temperatures, quiet acoustics and greater memory bandwidth than 980.
I have a nitro fury overclocked 150 MHz on the Core gaming stable @ 1150 MHz with +96 mV. Without any voltage at all can keep 1100 MHz on the core gaming stable.
Fiji is a cool chip, without fans this idles 33C. If you like you can turn on fans at 30% fan speed and it keeps idle at 26C-27C. TriX cooling is acoustically quieter then anything I've owned before on air which Includes ACX cooling.
Without overclocked memory, with added voltage for the Core OC I've seen 62C with the 62% fan speed after hours of gaming. Without any voltage added 58C 58% fan speed.
Soon I may toggle the BIOS switch and see what she does which allows for higher temps, higher OC but I'm not fond of higher temp. Naturally I benched this higher at 1175 MHz but I don't put weight into that. Gaming stable is what counts to me.
Over clocking HBM memory seems to be the down side as a 50 MHz OC raise temps about 5C gaming and 3C idle. It did provide 3-5 FPS but I've decided the gains were not as beneficial at the cost of higher temperatures. I don't consider it as important to OC memory when I already have this type of memory bandwidth anyway.
It was a shame air cooled Fury didn't come out at same time 980 launched. A lot of missed sales for AMD. King of the hill crown with Nvidia TI or above but under that there are now a couple better choices and finally priced competitively, one being with air cooled Fury over a 980 IMO. However Nvidia already saturated the market with no contest and will hype pascal for the next 6 months to keep perspective buyers to hold off.
None the less any cards at this performance / price range is nice for me moving forward. Also not sure why other AIB's like MSI Gaming didn't come out.
http://wccftech.com/review/sapphire-r9-fury-nitro-review/
@Arizonian Thank you for posting some temperature results and your personal experience, also thanks for the other review.
+mental rep
![wink.gif]( "wink.gif")
+mental rep
I don't understand why sites benchmark such outdated games that don't push the card.
They should be using games like below for benchmarks.
MGSV
Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Dragon Age Inquisition
Dying Light
Just Cause 3
They should be using games like below for benchmarks.
MGSV
Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Dragon Age Inquisition
Dying Light
Just Cause 3
@arizonian
fiji seems alot better in power/performance compare to hawaii. But does it suffer the same disease that's been plaguing hawaii, which is the infamous blackscreen ?
fiji seems alot better in power/performance compare to hawaii. But does it suffer the same disease that's been plaguing hawaii, which is the infamous blackscreen ?
Quote:
Fury 1100 MHz Core 4790K @ 4.6 GHz running 2560x1440 ISP
Crimson 16.1
Shados Of Mordor - Ultra - Min 61 Max 115 Avg 84
Crimson 15.12
Far Cry 4 - Ultra - Min 49 Max 128 Avg 104
Crysis 3 - Very High - Min 44 Max 94 Avg 58
Star Wars BF - Ultra - Field of View 100% - "Walker Assult (40player)" - Min 82 Max 127 Avg 105
One nitro fury can take on 1440p without having to worry about falling under 40 FPS freesync range.
Quote:
Can answer three of your questions and add one more games results.Originally Posted by Greenland
Crysis 3
Witcher 3
GTA V
Battlefield 4
Metro Last Light Redux
Farcry 4
Shadow of Mordor
would be more appealing to me.
Fury 1100 MHz Core 4790K @ 4.6 GHz running 2560x1440 ISP
Crimson 16.1
Shados Of Mordor - Ultra - Min 61 Max 115 Avg 84
Crimson 15.12
Far Cry 4 - Ultra - Min 49 Max 128 Avg 104
Crysis 3 - Very High - Min 44 Max 94 Avg 58
Star Wars BF - Ultra - Field of View 100% - "Walker Assult (40player)" - Min 82 Max 127 Avg 105
One nitro fury can take on 1440p without having to worry about falling under 40 FPS freesync range.
Quote:
Nope nothing like what happened at 290X launch.Originally Posted by Luciferxy
@arizonian
fiji seems alot better in power/performance compare to hawaii. But does it suffer the same disease that's been plaguing hawaii, which is the infamous blackscreen ?
Quote:
From what I saw on the Benchmark Configuration page they tested the GTX 970 with the 347.09 driver which released in December 2014, that's a super old driver, I presume they didn't test the card again recently. The GTX 980 Classified was tested with the 344.60 driver from November 2014. And they also tested 290X with the 14.4 driver which is also an old driver from 2014.
The R9 Fury they tested is also running an older driver, the the 15.8 driver to be exact. The current latest driver is the 16.1 "Crimson hot fix" driver.
It seems to me that they test their cards intentionally with the launch drivers, or drivers which were released close to the launch of the cards.
Benchmarks can be extremely time consuming and can also be quite costly to acquire the products to review. I'm not sure how they obtained the cards to review, whether they purchased them or received them to review as that sometimes happens.
However the other cards in this benchmark are seemingly based on old data which may or may not be relevant today in terms of the driver updates which have been pushed out for the cards over time, these driver updates can lead to performance increases. But they are also not testing the latest games so this may not be too big of a deal.
It would be nice to see them update their benchmarks with some of the newer releases, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and Metro Last Light are the latest games which they tested.
I saw that too, it's a shame really. I presume it's to have some form of consistency with their previous benchmarks providing they take them into account.Originally Posted by BeerPowered
I don't understand why sites benchmark such outdated games that don't push the card.
They should be using games like below for benchmarks.
MGSV
Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Dragon Age Inquisition
Dying Light
Just Cause 3
From what I saw on the Benchmark Configuration page they tested the GTX 970 with the 347.09 driver which released in December 2014, that's a super old driver, I presume they didn't test the card again recently. The GTX 980 Classified was tested with the 344.60 driver from November 2014. And they also tested 290X with the 14.4 driver which is also an old driver from 2014.
The R9 Fury they tested is also running an older driver, the the 15.8 driver to be exact. The current latest driver is the 16.1 "Crimson hot fix" driver.
It seems to me that they test their cards intentionally with the launch drivers, or drivers which were released close to the launch of the cards.
Benchmarks can be extremely time consuming and can also be quite costly to acquire the products to review. I'm not sure how they obtained the cards to review, whether they purchased them or received them to review as that sometimes happens.
However the other cards in this benchmark are seemingly based on old data which may or may not be relevant today in terms of the driver updates which have been pushed out for the cards over time, these driver updates can lead to performance increases. But they are also not testing the latest games so this may not be too big of a deal.
It would be nice to see them update their benchmarks with some of the newer releases, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and Metro Last Light are the latest games which they tested.
Quote:
![:doh:]( ":doh:")
Originally Posted by BeerPowered
I don't understand why sites benchmark such outdated games that don't push the card.
They should be using games like below for benchmarks.
MGSV
Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Dragon Age Inquisition
Dying Light
Just Cause 3
Is this like an easter joke with the choice of games for a 2016 review ?
I see a strange thing, we get more and more reviews of Fury/R9 390 cards now,even though they've all been reviewed already months ago. Sometimes we see the same site reviewing a card they already did review months ago,sometimes with different temperatures and power draw than in the early review: like 970s almost equal in power draw to 390s. A review entirely based on 2010-13 game?. This smells.
I see a strange thing, we get more and more reviews of Fury/R9 390 cards now,even though they've all been reviewed already months ago. Sometimes we see the same site reviewing a card they already did review months ago,sometimes with different temperatures and power draw than in the early review: like 970s almost equal in power draw to 390s. A review entirely based on 2010-13 game?. This smells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcn77
There you have it.
Thanks for adding that!
This looks to be a very well designed card. If we weren't right on the cusp of new GPUs from both sides I would consider getting this. Maybe when Pascal/Polaris launch I can grab one for cheap. Sadly, I will probably be pulled in by the heart wrenching gaze of new tech, and never look back....
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
