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
For a GPU that was expected to beat Titan X hands down, just being faster than 980 is quite a fail.Also due to the high cost technology involved in producing it.
Be happy for that, and just wait or DX12 to have some hope to gain few FPS with respect to the competitor.
I just think DX12 is not going to change anything (whatever these cards will gain will be the same for nvidia cards) and few FPS more or less is not what we expected from this top ties class (expensive) GPU.
Despite the great steps ahead made by AMD in power consumption, it still is a fail.
Large, expensive, still consuming more, and badly scaling.
Hope that with the new 16nm FinFet PP things will change radically, or we will witness a 2 year dominance again by nvidia with high prices.
superjim - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
Used 290's are going for sub-$200 (new for $250). Crossfire those and you get better performance for much less.P39Airacobra - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
Ok compared to the Fury X, The Regular R9 Fury makes a bit more sense than the X model. It is priced better (But still priced a bit too much) And it has almost even performance with the X model. However the power consumption is still insane and unreasonable for todays standards! And the temps are way too high for a triple fan card! With a 70c temp running triple fans I doubt there is any room at all for overclocking! I do respect this card's performance! But it is just not worth it for the price you have to pay for a hefty PSU, And the very loud and expensive cooling setup you will have to put inside your case! To be honest: If I was stuck with a old GTX 660 Ti, And someone offered me a R9 Fury for even trade, I would not do it!ES_Revenge - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
The power consumption is not insane or unreasonable for "today's standards". Only the GTX 960, 970, 980, Titan X are better. So it's unreasonable for Nvidia's new standard but it's actually an improvement over Hawaii, etc. of the past.Compared to current Nvidia offerings, it's bad yeah but we can't really established standards on their cards alone. R9 390/X, 380, etc. are still power hungry for their performance and they are still "today's" cards, like it or not.
Don't get me wrong I agree they really need to start focusing on power/heat reduction, but we're not going to see that from AMD until their next gen cards (if they make it that far, lol).
Gunbuster - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
AMD thread with no Chizow comments? My world is falling apart :POxford Guy - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
I'm sure this person has more than one alias.FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
We'd know him by his words, his many lengthy words with links and facts up the wazoo, and he is so proud he would not hide with another name, like a lousy, incorrect, uninformed, amd fanboy failure.FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Just think about placing your bare hand on 3 plugged in 100 Watt light bulbs ... that's AMD's housefire for you !My god you could cook a steak on the thing.
3X 100 watter light bulbs frying everything in your computer case... awesome job amd.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Because the GTX 480 was quieter, had better performance per watt, and was a fully-enabled chip.FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
So the 480 being hot makes this heated furnace ok ?What exactly is the logic there ?
Are you a problematic fanboy for amd ?