The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTBattlefield 4
Kicking off our benchmark suite is Battlefield 4, DICE’s 2013 multiplayer military shooter. After a rocky start, Battlefield 4 has since become a challenging game in its own right and a showcase title for low-level graphics APIs. As these benchmarks are from single player mode, based on our experiences our rule of thumb here is that multiplayer framerates will dip to half our single player framerates, which means a card needs to be able to average at least 60fps if it’s to be able to hold up in multiplayer.
As we briefly mentioned in our testing notes, our Battlefield 4 testing has been slightly modified as of this review to accommodate the changes in how AMD is supporting Mantle. This benchmark still defaults to Mantle for GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 cards (7970, 290X), but we’re using Direct3D for GCN 1.2 cards like the R9 Fury X. This is due to the lack of Mantle driver optimizations on AMD’s part, and as a result the R9 Fury X sees poorer performance here, especially at 2560x1440 (65.2fps vs. 54.3fps).
In any case, regardless of the renderer you pick, our first test does not go especially well for AMD and the R9 Fury X. The R9 Fury X does not take the lead at any resolution, and in fact this is one of the worse games for the card. At 4K AMD trails by 8-10%, and at 1440p that’s 16%. In fact the latter is closer to the GTX 980 than it is the GTX 980 Ti. Even with the significant performance improvement from the R9 Fury X, it’s not enough to catch up to NVIDIA here.
Meanwhile the performance improvement over the R9 290X “Uber” stands at between 23% and 32% depending on the resolution. AMD not only scales better than NVIDIA with higher resolutions, but R9 Fury X is scaling better than R9 290X as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
looncraz - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
We don't yet know how the Fury X will overclock with unlocked voltages.SLI is almost just as unreliable as CF, ever peruse the forums? That, and quite often you can get profiles from the wild wired web well before the companies release their support - especially on AMD's side.
chizow - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
@looncrazWe do know Fury X is an exceptionally poor overclocker at stock and already uses more power than the competition. Who's fault is it that we don't have proper overclocking capabilities when AMD was the one who publicly claimed this card was an "Overclocker's Dream?" Maybe they meant you could Overclock it, in your Dreams?
SLI is not as unreliable as CF, Nvidia actually offers timely updates on Day 1 and works with the developers to implement SLI support. In cases where there isn't a Day 1 profile, SLI has always provided more granular control over SLI profile bits vs. AMD's black box approach of a loadable binary, or wholesale game profile copies (which can break other things, like AA compatibility bits).
silverblue - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
No, he did actually mention the 980Ti's excellent overclocking ability. Conversely, at no point did he mention Fury X's overclocking ability, presumably because there isn't any.Refuge - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
He does mention it, and does say that it isn't really possible until they get modified bios with unlocked voltages.e36Jeff - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
first off, its 81W, not 120W(467-386). Second, unless you are running furmark as your screen saver, its pretty irrelevant. It merely serves to demonstrate the maximum amount of power the GPU is allowed to use(and given that the 980 Ti's is 1W less than in gaming, it indicates it is being artfically limited because it knows its running furmark).The important power number is the in game power usage, where the gap is 20W.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
There is no "artificial" limiting on the GTX 980 Ti in FurMark. The card has a 250W limit, and it tends to hit it in both games and FurMark. Unlike the R9 Fury X, NVIDIA did not build in a bunch of thermal/electrical headroom in to the reference design.kn00tcn - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
because furmark is normal usage right!? hbm magically lowers the gpu core's power right!? wtf is wrong with younandnandnand - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
AMD's Fury X has failed. 980 Ti is simply better.In 2016 NVIDIA will ship GPUs with HBM version 2.0, which will have greater bandwidth and capacity than these HBM cards. AMD will be truly dead.
looncraz - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
You do realize HBM was designed by AMD with Hynix, right? That is why AMD got first dibs.Want to see that kind of innovation again in the future? You best hope AMD sticks around, because they're the only ones innovating at all.
nVidia is like Apple, they're good at making pretty looking products and throwing the best of what others created into making it work well, then they throw their software into the mix and call it a premium product.
Intel hasn't innovated on the CPU front since the advent of the Pentium 4. Core * CPUs are derived from the Penitum M, which was derived from the Pentium Pro.
Kutark - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Man you are pegging the hipster meter BIG TIME. Get serious. "Intel hasn't innovated on the CPU front since the advent of the Pentium 4..." That has to be THE dumbest shit i've read in a long time.Say what you will about nvidia, but maxwell is a pristinely engineered chip.
While i agree with you that AMD sticking around is good, you can't be pissed at nvidia if they become a monopoly because AMD just can't resist buying tickets on the fail train...