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
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Oh, gee, forgot, it's not amd's fault ... it was "developers and access" which is not amd's fault, either... of course...OMFG
redraider89 - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
What's your excuse for being such an idiotic, despicable and ugly intel/nvidia fanboy? I don't know, maybe your parents? Somewhere you went wrong.OldSchoolKiller1977 - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link
I am sorry and NVIDIA fan boys resort to name calling.... what was it that you said and I quote "Hypocrite" :)redraider89 - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Your problem is deeper than just that you like intel/nvidia since you apparently hate people who don't like those, and ONLY because they like something different than you do.ant6n - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
A third way to look at it is that maybe AMD did it right.Let's say the chip is built from 80% stream processors (by area), the most redundant elements. If some of those functional elements fail during manufacture, they can disable them and sell it as the cheaper card. If something in the other 20% of the chip fails, the whole chip may be garbage. So basically you want a card such that if all the stream processors are functional, the other 20% become the bottleneck, whereas if some of the stream processors fail and they have to sell it as a simple Fury, then the stream processors become the bottleneck.
thomascheng - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
That is probably AMD's smart play. Fury was always the intended card. Perfect cards will be the X and perhaps less perfect card will be the Nano.FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
"fury was always the intended card"ROFL
amd fanboy out much ?
I mean it is unbelievable, what you said, and that you said it.
theduckofdeath - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link
Just shut up, Bubby.akamateau - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
Anand has been running DX12 benchmarks last spring. When they compared Radeon 290x to GTX 980 Ti nVidia ordered them to stop. That is why no more DX12 benchmarks have been run.Intel and nVidia are at a huge disadvantage with DX12 and Mantle.
The reason:
AMD IP: Asynchronous Shader Pipelines and Asynchronous Compute Engines.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
We saw mantle benchmarks so your fantasy is a bad amd fanboy delusion.