The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTCrysis 3
Still one of our most punishing benchmarks, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers and still holds the “most punishing shooter” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and that’s still without AA. Crysis 1 was an excellent template for the kind of performance required to drive games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2015.
Under Crysis 3 the R9 Fury once again has the lead, though there is a clear amount of variation in that lead depending on the resolution. At 4K it’s 14% or so, but at 1440p it’s just 5%. This is consistent with the general trend for AMD and NVIDIA cards, which is that AMD sees better performance scaling at higher resolutions, and is a big part of the reason why AMD is pushing 4K for the R9 Fury X and R9 Fury. Still, based on absolute performance, the R9 Fury’s performance probably makes it better suited for 1440p.
Meanwhile the R9 Fury cards once again consistently trail the R9 Fury X by no more than 7%. Crysis 3 is generally more sensitive to changes in shader throughput, so it’s interesting to see that the performance gap is as narrow as it is here. These kinds of results imply that the R9 Fury X’s last 512 stream processors aren’t being put to very good use, since most of the performance difference can be accounted for in the clockspeed difference.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
If you still can't understand numbers but only can understand bar colors, I can sum up things for you for the same game (Crysys 3) also for the techpowerup review at 2560x1440 (the resolution for this kind of cards):At 780Ti presentation (nov 2013)
780ti 27
290X 26.3
At Fuxy X presentation (so, last week):
780ti 29.3
290X 29.4
So the 290X passed from -0.7fps to +0.1fps... WOW! That is a miracle!!!!!
Only a fanboy should think about that, or one that does not understand benchmarks numbers, can't interpret them and can only see bar length/relative positions.
You see a similar trend with Battlefield 3, where the 290X from -3fps became -0.3fps. And both cards have raised their FPS.
So, yes, AMD recovered a fraction of nothing and nvidia didn't crippled anything.
You have also not noted that in the meantime AMD changed the 290X policy on BIOS and custom, so all cards have become "uber" and better custom radiators allowed the card not to be throttled. So the advantage of this performance is reserved for those that have bought these cards, not for those that have bought the "not sampled" reference ones (can you remember the issue about those cards in retail market that have quite different performances with respect to those send to reviewers?). Yes, another miracle...
These are the MYTH I like reading about that only fanboy can sustain. These are the type of arguments that let you clearly spot a fanboy in the group.
CiccioB - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
So, where are the facts sustaining your myth? I can't see them and it seems you can't provide them either.Yes, 780Ti a crappy investment... it was good the 290X with stuttering all over the place that still continues today with DX9 games.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Thank you CiccioB, I was wondering if another sane person was here.loguerto - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
This is the primary reason why i buy AMD, because i am not willing to change my hardware every year i brought a 290x in 2013 and in that period it was neck to neck with the 780 ti, after nearly two years the 290x destroys the 780 ti and beats constantly even the 970, which at it's release was ahead. The 970 remained there with the performance meanwhile the 290x continued improving. I am so glad i brought the 290x.CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
You are a poor man with no clue on what it is buying. Your justification for buying the cheaper card on the market are quite pitiful.I bet you can't report a single case where Kepler run faster before than it is today. Nor can't you evaluate how much this miraculous" AMD drivers have improved your gaming experience.
Can you? Let's see these numbers.
If not, well, just don't go on with this king of talking because it really picture you (all AMD fanboys) more ridiculous than you already are.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
What the HELL are you babbling about ?The 980 wasn't realeased THEN at your "proof link" and the 290x is winning over the 780...
WHAT FANTASY HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF OF YOU AMD FANBOY... TIME WILL NOT HEAL THE FURY AND FURY X LOSSES !
mikato - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
I agree. This would make a fantastic article - and a unique critical thinking subject that Anandtech is well positioned to undertake and is known for. It would certainly generate traffic and be linked to like crazy, hint hint.ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury offers between 8% and 17% better performance than the GTX 980, depending on if we’re looking at 4K or 1440p""I don’t believe the R9 Fury is a great 4K card"
"in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance."
"This doesn’t make either card a notably better value"
So at resolutions under 4K, which are the applications you recommend for the R9 Fury, it performs 17% better than the GTX 980 for 10% more price, and yet you conclude it is not a better value? Help me out here. It would be more accurate to say that neither card is a better value for 4K gaming, where the difference was indeed 8%. Any resolution below that, the Fury X is indeed a better value.
Ryan Smith - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
At 1440p the Fury X is 8% faster for 10% more cost. From a value standpoint that's a wash.At 4K the lead is upwards of 17%, but on an absolute basis it's a bit too slow if you're serious about 4K.
ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Thanks for the clarification. Also, I really appreciate the inclusion of the 7970 data, as I currently run a 3.5 yr old reference version of that card.