Grand Theft Auto V

The final game in our review of the R9 Fury X is our most recent addition, Grand Theft Auto V. The latest edition of Rockstar’s venerable series of open world action games, Grand Theft Auto V was originally released to the last-gen consoles back in 2013. However thanks to a rather significant facelift for the current-gen consoles and PCs, along with the ability to greatly turn up rendering distances and add other features like MSAA and more realistic shadows, the end result is a game that is still among the most stressful of our benchmarks when all of its features are turned up. Furthermore, in a move rather uncharacteristic of most open world action games, Grand Theft Auto also includes a very comprehensive benchmark mode, giving us a great chance to look into the performance of an open world action game.

On a quick note about settings, as Grand Theft Auto V doesn't have pre-defined settings tiers, I want to quickly note what settings we're using. For "Very High" quality we have all of the primary graphics settings turned up to their highest setting, with the exception of grass, which is at its own very high setting. Meanwhile 4x MSAA is enabled for direct views and reflections. This setting also involves turning on some of the advanced redering features - the game's long shadows, high resolution shadows, and high definition flight streaming - but it not increasing the view distance any further.

Otherwise for "High" quality we take the same basic settings but turn off all MSAA, which significantly reduces the GPU rendering and VRAM requirements.

Grand Theft Auto V - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 3840x2160 - High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality

Our final game sees the R9 Fury X go out on either an average or slightly worse than average note, depending on the settings and resolution we are looking at. At our highest 4K settings the R9 Fury X trails the GTX 980 Ti once again, this time by 10%. Worse, at 1440p it’s now 15%. On the other hand if we run at our lower, more playable 4K settings, then the gap is only 5%, roughly in line with the overall average 4K performance gap between the GTX 980 Ti and R9 Fury X.

In this case it’s probably to AMD’s benefit that our highest 4K settings aren’t actually playable on a single GPU card, as the necessary drop in quality gets them closer to NVIDIA’s performance. On the other hand this does reiterate the fact that right now many games will force a tradeoff between resolution and quality if you wish to pursue 4K gaming.

Finally, the performance gains relative to the R9 290X are pretty good. 29% at 1440p, and 44% at the lower quality playable 4K resolution setting.

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile Framerate - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile Framerate - 3840x2160 - High Quality

Grand Theft Auto V - 99th Percentile Framerate - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality

Shifting gears to 99th percentile frametimes however – a much-welcome feature of the game’s built-in benchmark – finds that AMD doesn’t fare nearly as well. At the 99th percentile the R9 Fury X trails the GTX 980 Ti at all times, and significantly so. The deficit is anywhere between 26% at 1440p to 40% at 4K Very High.

What’s happening here is a combination of multiple factors. First and foremost, next to Shadow of Mordor, GTAV is our other VRAM busting game. This, I believe, is why 99th percentile performance dives so hard at 4K Very High for the R9 Fury X, as it only has 4GB of VRAM compared to 6GB on the GTX 980 Ti. But considering where the GTX 980 places – above the R9 Fury X – I also believe there’s more than just VRAM bottlenecking occurring here. The GTX 980 sees at least marginally better framerates with the same size VRAM pool (and a lot less of almost everything else), which leads me to believe that AMD’s drivers may be holding them back here. Certainly the R9 290X comparison lends some possible credit to that, as the 99th percentile gains are under 20%. Regardless, one wouldn’t expect to be VRAM limited at 1440p or 4K without MSAA, especially as this test was not originally designed to bust 4GB cards.

GRID Autosport Synthetics
Comments Locked

458 Comments

View All Comments

  • just4U - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    I thought it was great as well.. It had a lot more meat to it then I was expecting. Ryan might have been late to the party but he's getting more feedback than most other sites on his review so that shows that it was highly anticipated.
  • B3an - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    I don't understand why the Fury X doesn't perform better... It's specs are considerably better than a 290X/390X and it's memory bandwidth is far higher than any other card out there... yet it still can't beat the 980 Ti and should also be faster than it already is compared to the 290X. It just doesn't make sense.
  • just4U - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Early drivers and perhaps the change over into a new form of memory tech has a bit of a tech curve that isn't fully realized yet.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Perhaps DX11 is holding it back. As far as I understand it, Maxwell is more optimized for DX11 than AMD's cards are. AMD really should have sponsored a game engine or something so that there would have been a DX12 title available for benchmarkers with this card's launch.
  • dominopourous - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Great stuff. Can we get a benchmarks with these cards overclocked? I'm thinking the 980 Ti and the Titan X will scale much better with overclocking compared to Fury X.
  • Mark_gb - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Great review. With 1 exception.

    Once again, the 400 AMP number is tossed around as how much power the Fury X can handle. But think about that for one second. Even a EVGA SuperNOVA 1600 G2 Power Supply is extreme overkill for a system with a single Fury X in it, and its +12V rail only provides 133.3 amps.

    That 400 AMP number is wrong. Very wrong. It should be 400 watts. Push 400 Amps into a Fury X and it most likely would literally explode. I would not want to be anywhere near that event.
  • AngelOfTheAbyss - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    The operating voltage of the Fury chip is probably around 1V, so 400A sounds correct (1V*400A = 400W).
  • meacupla - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    okay, see, it's not 12V * 400A = 4800W. It's 1V (or around 1V) * 400A = 400W
    4800W would trip most 115VAC circuit breakers, as that would be 41A on 115VAC, before you even start accounting for conversion losses.
  • bugsy1339 - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Anyone hear about Nvidia lowering thier graphics quality to get a higher frame rate in reviews vs Fury? Reference is semi accurate forum 7/3 (Nvidia reduces IQ to boost performance on 980TI? )
  • sa365 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    I too would like to know more re:bugsy1939 comment.

    Have Nvidia been caught out with lower IQ levels forced in the driver?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now