The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTThe Talos Principle
Croteam’s first person puzzle and exploration game The Talos Principle may not involve much action, but the game’s lush environments still put even fast video cards to good use. Coupled with the use of 4x MSAA at Ultra quality, and even a tranquil puzzle game like Talos can make a good case for more powerful video cards.
Coming off of AMD’s poor Dragon Age performance, The Talos Principle offers the R9 Fury X a much-needed win. At 4K with Ultra quality settings the card is able to hit 57.2fps, just shy of 60fps. More importantly it’s ahead of not only the GTX 980 Ti, but the GTX Titan X as well, taking down both of NVIDIA’s flagships at once. The 9% lead over the GTX 980 Ti is one of the best AMD will see all day, so this is a game that’s clearly in AMD’s favor.
Do note however that AMD’s performance once again regresses at 1440p. It’s enough to retain the lead, if just barely, and tie the GTX Titan X. Thankfully for AMD this is an example of a game where a single GPU card is plenty for 4K gaming.
As for the R9 290X comparison, the results end up being very interesting. The R9 Fury X sees some very impressive gains here, improving over the R9 290X by 47% at 1440p and an amazing 60% at 4K. Given that the latter is outright outside our theoretical performance window for a shader-bound scenario, I suspect there’s more at play here than just GPU improvements. And sure enough, running the modified Catalyst 15.15 drivers on the R9 290X finds that performance improves by 21% at 4K, to 43.6fps, so it looks like AMD has been doing some optimizing for this game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
Scali - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
Even better, there are various vendors that sell a short version of the GTX970 (including Asus and Gigabyte for example), so it can take on the Nano card directly, as a good choice for a mini-ITX based HTPC.And unlike the Nano, the 970 DOES have HDMI 2.0, so you can get 4k 60 Hz on your TV.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
28 GB/s + XOR contention is fast performance indeed, at half the speed of a midrange card from 2007.Gothmoth - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
so in short another BULLDOZER.... :-(after all the hype not enough and too late.
i agree the card is not bad.. but after all the HYPE it IS a disappointment.
OC results are terrible... and AMD said it will be an overclockers dream.
add to that that i read many complains about the noisy watercooler (yes for retail versions not early preview versions).
iamserious - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
It looks ugly. Loliamserious - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
Also. I understand it's a little early but I thought this card was supposed to blow the GTX 980Ti out of the water with it's new memory. The performance to price ratio is decent but I was expecting a bit larger jump in performance increase. Perhaps with the driver updates things will change.Scali - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
Hum, unless I missed it, I didn't see any mention of the fact that this card only supports DX12 level 12_0, where nVidia's 9xx-series support 12_1.That, combined with the lack of HDMI 2.0 and the 4 GB limit, makes the Fury X into a poor choice for the longer term. It is a dated architecture, pumped up to higher performance levels.
FMinus - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
Whilst it's beyond me why they skimped on HDMI 2.0 - there's adapters if you really want to run this card on a TV. It's not such a huge drama tho, the cards will drive DP monitors in the vast majority, so, I'm much more sad at the missing DVI out.Scali - Wednesday, July 8, 2015 - link
I think the reason why there's no HDMI 2.0 is simple: they re-used their dated architecture, and did not spend time on developing new features, such as HDMI 2.0 or 12_1 support.With nVidia already having this technology on the market for more than half a year, AMD is starting to drop behind. They were losing sales to nVidia, and their new offerings don't seem compelling enough to regain their lost marketshare, hence their profits will be limited, hence their investment in R&D for the next generation will be limited. Which is a problem, since they need to invest more just to get where nVidia already is.
It looks like they may be going down the same downward spiral as their CPU division.
sa365 - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
Well at least AMD aren't cheating by allowing the driver to remove AF despite what settings are selected in game. Just so they can win benchmarks.How about some fair, like for like benchmarking and see where these cards really stand.
FourEyedGeek - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
As for the consoles having 8 GB of RAM, not only is that shared, but the OS uses 3 GB to 3.5 GB, meaning there is only a max of 5 GB for the games on those consoles. A typical PC being used with this card will have 8 to 16 GB plus the 4 GB on the card. Giving a total of 12 GB to 20 GB.In all honesty at 4K resolutions, how important is Anti-Aliasing on the eye? I can't imagine it being necessary at all, let alone 4xMSAA.