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
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?