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
chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
Oh, and also forgot his biggest mistake was vastly overpaying for ATI, leading both companies on this downward spiral of crippling debt and unrealized potential.chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
Uh...Bulldozer happened on Ruiz's watch, and he also wasn't able to capitalize on K8's early performance leadership. Beyond that he orchestrated the sale of their fabs to ATIC culminating in the usurious take or pay WSA with GloFo that still cripples them to this day. But of course, it was no surprise why he did this, he traded AMD's fabs for a position as GloFo's CEO which he was forced to resign from in shame due to insider trading allegations. Yep, Ruiz was truly a crook but AMD fanboys love to throw stones at Huang. :Dtipoo - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Nooo please put it back, it was so much better with Anandtech referring to AMD as the taint :PHOOfan 1 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
At least he didn't spell it "perianal"Wreckage - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
It's silly to paint AMD as the underdog. It was not that long ago that they were able to buy ATI (a company that was bigger than NVIDIA). I remember at the time a lot of people were saying that NVIDIA was doomed and could never stand up to the might of a combined AMD + ATI. AMD is not the underdog, AMD got beat by the underdog.Drumsticks - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
I mean, AMD has a market cap of ~2B, compared to 11B of Nvidia and ~140B of Intel. They also have only ~25% of the dGPU market I believe. While I don't know a lot about stocks and I'm sure this doesn't tell the whole story, I'm not sure you could ever sell Nvidia as the underdog here.Kjella - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Sorry but that is plain wrong as nVidia wasn't just bigger than ATI, they were bigger than AMD. Their market cap in Q2 2006 was $9.06 billion, on the purchase date AMD was worth $8.84 billion and ATI $4.2 billion. It took a massive cash/stock deal worth $5.6 billion to buy ATI, including over $2 billion in loans. AMD stretched to the limit to make this happen, three days later Intel introduced the Core 2 processor and it all went downhill from there as AMD couldn't invest more and struggled to pay interest on falling sales. And AMD made an enemy of nVidia, which Intel could use to boot nVidia out of the chipset/integrated graphics market by not licensing QPI/DMI with nVidia having nowhere to go. It cost them $1.5 billion, but Intel has made back that several times over since.kspirit - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
That was pretty savage of Intel, TBH. I'm impressed.Iketh - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
or you could say AMD purposely finalized the purchase just before Core2 was introduced... after Core2, the purchase would have been impossibleWreckage - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/24/technology/nvidia_...AMD was worth $8.5B and ATI was worth $5B at the time of the merger making them worth about twice what NVIDIA was worth at the time ($7B)
In 2004 NVIDIA had a market cap of $2.4B and ATI was at $4.3B nearly twice.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidias-market-sh...
NVIDIA was the underdog until the combined AMD+ATI collapsed and lost most of their value. They are Goliath brought down by David.