discussion The AMD R9 Fury Review; Fiji Pro Arrives. Comment Thread

[Beaverton]

I was underwhelmed by the Fury X but I am pleased to see this one doing better than the 980 by a good margin.

 

[SKYMTL]

Could you please confirm the power consumption chart? The text says Unigine Valley but the graphic shows Hitman Absolution.

Your figures show a contrary result vs. Bit-Tech and HotHardware who show the Fury using more power than the Fury X.

I don't know how the Fury would use more power than the Fury X. Us, Ryan at PCPer and Ryan at Anandtech all show about the same delta between the Fury and Fury X.

 

[Vittra]

I'm not sure if this is relevant or has any significance to that, but Hardocp had a section for Dying Light where they said turning down settings in the game actually caused the Fury to jump 50 watts in power consumption, compared to using higher visual settings where the 980 was shown beating it. I didn't type that wrong - turning down the settings caused the card to actually work harder - they surmised the card was hitting a VRAM limit, but both cards have 4GB - perhaps the compression technique Nvidia uses is significantly superior?

 

[ZzzSleep]

I'm not sure if this is relevant or has any significance to that, but Hardocp had a section for Dying Light where they said turning down settings in the game actually caused the Fury to jump 50 watts in power consumption, compared to using higher visual settings where the 980 was shown beating it. I didn't type that wrong - turning down the settings caused the card to actually work harder - they surmised the card was hitting a VRAM limit, but both cards have 4GB - perhaps the compression technique Nvidia uses is significantly superior?

Maxwell did introduce some compression techniques, so it's possible.

 

[SKYMTL]

I didn't type that wrong - turning down the settings caused the card to actually work harder - they surmised the card was hitting a VRAM limit, but both cards have 4GB - perhaps the compression technique Nvidia uses is significantly superior?

*facepalm*

Higher framerates = higher SYSTEM power consumption. IE: The GPU is running at significantly higher framerates which causes higher consumption. The higher amount of frames being sent to the GPU and system memory ups the amount of load on the CPU, memory and other system components.

This is why technologies like NVIDIA's Framerate Targeting and AMD's FRTC are hailed as ways to reduce power consumption. It's also why programs like Furmark that run in the hundreds to thousands of frames per second are power hogs.

C'mon, this is basic stuff!

 

[zoob]

The Bittech review uses Unigine Valley 1.0 Their setup with the Sapphire Fury X drew 475W vs. the Fury X 445W, which is why I was curious if the HWC numbers were from using the same test.
Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X 4GB Review - Power and Thermals | bit-tech.net

Results like this are making (certain) people call the Fury a failure because apparently it "requires" liquid cooling.

I can see AMD having wanted to address the noise situation because the 290/290X reference cooler was a terrible stock design and then ending up with a CLC due to noise & a happy and free benefit of improved leakage at lower temperatures, but now the Fury non-X has dropped the Fury X reference CLC is drawing even more negative attention.

 

[SKYMTL]

We use in-game. I updated the review accordingly.

 

[FreeKnight]

Well it's too bad that this launch is really looking bad for AMD. Even if the 390X and Fury didn't beat the Ti and 980, a solid performer with a good performance/cost ratio would have been good news for them. Having to RMA a brand new 'top of the line' card coupled with supply shortages is exactly the kind of press they didn't need. It's a bad showing by AMD's Quality assurance and management. Would have much rather seen a smooth launch and some success for their side.

 

[SKYMTL]

We can typically tell interest in a product from the amount of traffic a review receives. The GTX 980 Ti review started strong and continued strong. Ironically, between the Fury X launch and now, it had a massive traffic spike.

The 390X review went gangbusters for two days and then died off. Basically everyone initially thought the 390X was the "new" card.

The Fury X review started through the roof and has been going OK thus far but it is now averaging 1/2 the traffic of the GTX 980 Ti review.

The Fury had the distinction of being tied to what may be the most backwards launch of any GPU in the last half decade. Allowing reviews to be posted before the official launch date and availability has proven to be a massive mistake on AMD's part. Traffic was only GOOD on launch day and it seems folks have shrugged, said "meh" and moved on...to the GTX 980 reviews we have which are all up between 12-20% in traffic.

I honestly hope the Nano launch isn't bungled this much.

 

[Sagath]

Well it's too bad that this launch is really looking bad for AMD. Even if the 390X and Fury didn't beat the Ti and 980, a solid performer with a good performance/cost ratio would have been good news for them. Having to RMA a brand new 'top of the line' card coupled with supply shortages is exactly the kind of press they didn't need. It's a bad showing by AMD's Quality assurance and management. Would have much rather seen a smooth launch and some success for their side.

I agree wholeheartedly. Lack of competition will just lead to nVidia robbing us all. The exchange rate isnt helping either though