New cards from AMD in two weeks ?

How would it have been an amazing card? Launches @ $650 but not that much faster than the 980? Who would buy a FuryX @ $650 over a GTX980... Thank NV for releasing it early as had they released just a day later, they would have taken all the wind from AMD and stole the show completely.

Doz, I assume you mean a 980ti?

No.... He posed the "What-If" for AMD launching FuryX prior to 980Ti release... If AMD launched FuryX @ $650 and only the 980 was out, it would still be a no brainer (assuming they still price cut like they did). FuryX is not worth $650 compared to a 980.

FuryX is about ~7% slower than the 980Ti. 980 is about ~30% slower than 980Ti. You are looking about ~23% difference between FuryX and 980 (and thats a factory clocked 980, not the 10% overclocked variants). But look at the price to performance. You get ~23% performance for 30% more money (and in reality, its probably about ~20% performance due to $500 factory overclock cards such as the Windforce).

Its all hypothetical really what he is stating, just saying..... Price to Performance would not be there IMo.

deathman20 said:

We'll its an improvement non the less, but not drastic. Though its nice to see that at least AMD does have a product that can compete with the GTX 980Ti.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I was expecting a clear win for AMD, either in performance or with the launch price. Neither of that has happened. AMD are not very competitive at the top end. If I were to drop $650, I'd go the 980 route. I could not find much information about how the FuryX overclocks.

Everything that I've found regarding the overclocking is 100mhz or less from stock (so 1150 from 1050mhz) and the memory was not overclockable at all.

Despite Joe Macri's claim to the contrary, the testers are not able to overclock the FuryX much at all. Not even close to what the GTX980TI can do.

In tbe presentation, the refernce to overclocking was thermal headroom.

..that said, when I talked with him, he did expect it to clock well...

After checking various reviews it looks like Fury X is not even so much faster than the 290x. In general it's faster but in FPS it's not so big difference. What I'm wondering now is how Fury non-X will perform as it supposed to be direct competition for GTX980 while in most games Fury X is about as fast as GTX980 ( non Ti ). I was expecting much bigger difference.

So we got 390X which is about the same as 290X but cost more. Fury which will be not much faster than 390X/290X but ~30% more expensive and Fury X which is about GTX980 performance but cost like 980Ti. Only Nano can save AMD now

Btw. in all reviews I saw also ~100MHz OC on Fury X and nothing more.

I also see that AMD is still improving drivers for older series while Nvidia is not improving anything besides GTX900. GTX780/Ti were beating AMD products in similar price while now in many games 290X is beating 780Ti. It's like 20% boost for AMD while Nvidia stuck in the same place for these "older" cards.

Heh, bart, I was expecting you to post that you borked one already...

I'm too poor for these cards ... I was thinking about GTX980Ti or Fury X but I decided to skip it as prices in PL are about ~1k for reference cards.

All the stores selling the Fury X are out of stock, I wonder if they are selling really well or if the graphic cards companies are having trouble making enough.

I have them unavailable everywhere so my guess will be that they are barely on stock anywhere. In local distribution I have everything on stock after premiere while Fury is not even in delivery. There are 3 models already listed ( well, all reference but different brands ). Price is about $100 lower than 980Ti. I bet that when they will be on stock then it will go up.

Most who wanted top of the line card already got 980Ti and won't switch to Fury X. Not many of those who really wanted and waited for Fury X left, especially when you check how low % of all users can spend money on so expensive graphics cards. I just don't think that none of the large online stores in Poland who have direct contact with European distribution already sold all Fury X cards when they weren't even on stock yet.

Btw. I got 290X Matrix 2 days ago while there are promo prices on "old" series In local stores $250 cheaper than reference 390X.

So are we looking in to this saying the Fury X is another HD2000 moment supposed to be good in performance but it's lacking in that department ??? but another thing you say would AMD be looking in to putting out better drivers for it though I can't see it new drivers clawing back a lot of that lost % in performance compared to nVidia's flagship cards

I think AMD will improve drives. Usually their drivers after a year give 10-30% boost. Look at 290X. These cards were barely faster than GTX780, now are as good as GTX980 in some games.
I think that Win10 premiere and improved official drivers can change a lot.

I guess the current benches are not very accurate because just as been told, the drivers are not yet comparable to the already very mature Nvidia drivers... so i do expect the Fury X to be at the Titan level at least but at the current time it surely is not truly the best deal... it may have open potential, so its all about potential. We still know way to less regarding its potential, so i would stay calm and trying to investigate properly, over and over...

I hear Nvidia puts out new drivers more often, historically, than AMD. I'm not too familiar in this area - does AMD generally make greater performance improvements with it's drivers than Nvidia?

Who knows. Occasionally both camps come out with performance based drivers that work across a lot of their newer series, but to say which does better... tough call.

Nvidia seems to have more frequent whql drivers, and about as many betas as amd. Not sure if that means anything though...

Nvidia is releasing drivers more often and most of them have some improvements. Point is that Nvidia don't care to make performance improvements for older series after releasing anything new. Like after releasing GTX980 all were saying that this card is often slower than GTX780Ti. Right now in many games GTX970 is as fast as GTX780Ti. GTX700 just stuck for longer while GTX900 is still improving. It's normal that manufacturer don't want to promote older products as they want to make money on new stuff.
With AMD it's like they release less whql but many beta drivers. They improve performance for newer and older series ... maybe also because older series have often the same cores as "new". Look at pitcarin core which is already on the market for over 3 years and now refreshed again as R9 370. The same R9 380/390/X. AMD is not spending additional money on that.

Back to the benchmarks in popular reviews. I hate how most websites are preparing reviews and put there results from old database. Example can be R9 290X which in many reviews has results on old drivers which were released just after premiere. The same with most other cards. Later potential customers are deciding on products which are not really faster but cost much more like 290X vs 390X or 285 vs 380. Exactly the same was with Nvidia when GTX900 series was compared to GTX700 on old drivers.

Windows10/dx12 wont change anything. I do not think drivers are going to help as much as people believe either. Maybe 5-10% at best in some newer titles. We have no dx12 games and there are not very many on the horizon so dx12 performance means near nothing right now. By the time it matters, new cards will probably be out.

its been confirmed that 10% increase in fps is what ull see from dx12 ready cards aka 900 series/titan x