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
siliconwars - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Any concept of performance per dollar?D. Lister - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The Fury is 8% faster than a stock 980 and 10% more expensive. How does that "performance per dollar" thing work again? :pNagorak - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
By that token the 980 is not good performance per dollar either. It's sonething like a 390 non-x topping the charts. These high end cards are always a rip off.D. Lister - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
"These high end cards are always a rip off."That, is unfortunately a fact. :(
siliconwars - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The Asus Strix is 9.4% faster than the 980 with 20% worse power consumption. I wouldn't call that "nowhere near" Maxwell tbh and the Nano will be even closer if not ahead.Dazmillion - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Nobody is talking about the fact that the Fury cards which AMD claims is for 4k gaming doesnt have a 4k@60Hz port!!David_K - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
So the displayport 1.2 connector isn't capable of sending 2160p60hz. That's new.Dazmillion - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The fury cards dont come with HDMI 2.0ES_Revenge - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
Which is true but not the only way to get that resolution & refresh. Lack of HDMI 2.0 and full HEVC features is certainly another sore point for Fury. For the most part HDMI 2.0 affects the consumer AV/HT world though, not so much the PC world. In the PC world, gaming monitors capable of those res/refresh rates are going to have DP on them which makes HDMI 2.0 extraneous.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
I'll second ES_Revenge on the DP for PC Gaming. The world of 4K Home Monitors being absent with HDMI 2.0 is something we'll live with until the next major revision.I don't even own a 4K Home Monitor. Not very popular in sales either.
Every single one of them showing up on Amazon are handicapped with that SMART TV crap.
I want a 4K Dumb Device that is the output Monitor with FreeSync and nothing else.
I'll use the AppleTV for the `smart' part.