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
mickulty - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Looks fantastic! Definitely getting one of these once the stock is there.FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Yes paper launch for the r9 390X ... newegg is dry as a bone and just 15 reviews with zero stock only sapphire had about 10 cards to sell otherwise NO STOCK AT NEWEGG AT ALL.it's july 16th and the r9 390x is vapor
figus77 - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Got a Sapphire Fury Tri-X (non OC version) the 16/7 in Italy... probably is newegg problem... and really is a good card, with catalyst 15.7 i got very nice results... With my system 8320, 16gb 1600hz, in Tomb Raider 2560x1440 all maxed out with TressFX on, FPS MIN: 58,0 - MED: 75,3 - MAX: 94,0Really good results. Witcher3 run stable beetween 45 to 50 fps in ultra setting in 2560x1440 and that casr is really silent you can't hear anything even after some long time playing.
Jtaylor1986 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Almost makes you wonder if AMD should have just designed the card with 54 compute units and would have had a winner on it's hand. Fury X seems to be somewhat unbalanced in terms of it's hardware configuration.Asomething - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
This imbalance comes from gcn's limitations, amd tried to compensate with the extra shaders.Ranger101 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Another quality Gpu review from Anandtech, in addition to being so early. Best of both worlds.jann5s - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
The sapphire Tri-X cooling solutions performs impressively under load. I think this a consequence of the abysmal configuration forced on videocards by the ATX standard. The sapphire card can exhaust the hot air freely because of the short PCB, which proves we could use a replacement for ATX (or shorter PCB's)Ian Cutress - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
It would be interesting to see the effect of having 2 or 3 cards in one system using that paradigm for sure.jann5s - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
interesting for sure, any change sapphire will send another card?jann5s - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
speaking of which, what happened to BTX?