The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTMiddle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Our next benchmark is Monolith’s popular open-world action game, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. One of our current-gen console multiplatform titles, Shadow of Mordor is plenty punishing on its own, and at Ultra settings it absolutely devours VRAM, showcasing the knock-on effect that current-gen consoles have on VRAM requirements.
Shadow of Mordor ends up being a big win for AMD, with the R9 Fury cards shooting well past the GTX 980. Based on our earlier R9 Fury X review this was not an unexpected result, but at the end of the day with a 20%+ performance advantage, it’s a great situation for AMD to be in.
Meanwhile the R9 Fury’s performance relative to its X-rated sibling is yet again in the 7% range. So far the performance difference between the two cards is surprisingly consistent.
Finally, since AMD’s last two $550 cards were the R9 290X and HD 7970, let’s take a look at those comparisons quickly. At 1440p the R9 Fury only has a 17% lead over the R9 290X “Uber”, which for a card almost 2 years old is more than a bit surprising. The R9 Fury has more efficient front-ends and back-ends and significant advantages in shader throughput and memory bandwidth, and yet the performance gains compared to 290X are fairly small. On the other hand 7970 owners looking to upgrade to another Radeon should like what they’re seeing, as the R9 Fury’s 79% performance advantage is approaching upgrade territory.
Shifting gears to minimum framerates, the situation is similarly in AMD’s favor at 4K. One of the outcomes of going up against the GTX 980 is that it’s just as VRAM-limited as R9 Fury is, so in a VRAM intensive game like Shadow of Mordor, neither card has an advantage. However it’s quite interesting that once we back off to 1440p, the GTX 980 surges forward.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
i'VE ALREADY SEEN A DOZEN REFUSE TO BUY FURY BECAUSE OF IT.They have a 4k TV, they say, that requires the hdmi 2.0...
SO ALL YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSES MEAN EXACTLY NOTHING. THOSE WITH 4K READY SCREENS ARE BAILING TO NVIDIA ONLY !
YOU DENYING REALITY WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE FOR AMD.
They can screw off longer with enough pinheads blabbering bs.
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
It's such a massive failure, and so big a fat obtuse lie, it's embarrassing to even bring up, spoiling the party that is fun if you pretend and fantasize enough, and ignore just how evil amd is.hdmi 2.0 - nope ! way to go what a great 4k gaming card ! 4gb ram - suddenly that is more than enough and future proof !
ROFL - ONLY AMD FANBOYS
dave1231 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
That's with HBM? Lol.medi03 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
With all respect, 300 vs 360 watt at load and 72 vs 75 watt idle doesn't deserve "consumes MUCH more power", Ryan, and that even if it wasn't a faster card.Socius - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
For total system power draw? Yeah it does....because the power usage gap percentage is lessened by the addition of the system power usage (minus the cards) in the total figure. So if the numbers were 240W vs 300W, for example, that's 25% more power usage. And that's with a 20-30W reduction in power usage by using HBM. So it shows how inefficient the GPU design actually is, even when asking it with HBM power reduction and the addition of total system power draw instead of calculating it by card.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
Personally, I have an RM 1000W Corsair Power Supply. Sorry, but if you're using < 850W supply units I suggest you buck up and upgrade.Socius - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
I think you replied to the wrong person here. I have 2 PSUs in my PC. A 6-rail 1600W unit and a single rail 1250W unit.Peichen - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The fail that’s AMD’s Fury series makes my MSI Gaming 4G GTX980 looks even better. I only paid $430 for it and it gets to 1490/1504 boosted at stock voltage. Essentially it means I got a card as fast as Fury OC at $100+ cheaper, uses far less power and in my system for months earlier.I am very glad I went Nvidia after 5 year with AMD/ATI graphics and didn’t wait months for Fiji.
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
There we have it, and it's still the better deal. It's STILL THE BETTER DEAL AND IT'S AVAILABLE.But we're supposed to believe amd is cheap and faster... and just as good in everything else...
I seriously can't think of a single thing amd isn't behind on.
MobiusPizza - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury will be launching with an MSRP of $549, $100 below the R9 Fury X. This price puts the R9 Fury up against much different completion* than its older sibling; "It's competition not completion