The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 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 of current-gen consoles have on VRAM requirements.
With Shadow of Mordor things finally start looking up for AMD, as the R9 Fury X scores its first win. Okay, it’s more of a tie than a win, but it’s farther than the R9 Fury X has made it so far.
At 4K with Ultra settings the R9 Fury X manages an average of 48.3fps, a virtual tie with the GTX 980 Ti and its 47.9fps. Dropping down to Very High quality does see AMD pull back just a bit, but with a difference between the two cards of just 0.7fps, it’s hardly worth worrying about. Even 2560 looks good for AMD here, trailing the GTX 980 Ti by just over 1fps, at an average framerate of over 80fps. Overall the R9 Fury X delivers 98% to 101% of the performance of the GTX 980 Ti, more or less tying the direct competitor to AMD’s latest card.
Meanwhile compared to the R9 290X, the R9 Fury X doesn’t see quite the same gains. Performance is a fairly consistent 26-28% ahead of the R9 290X, less than what we’ve seen elsewhere. Earlier we discussed how the R9 Fury X’s performance gains will depend on which part of the GPU is getting stressed the most; tasks that stress the shaders show the most gains, and tasks that stress geometry or the ROPs potentially show the lowest gains. In the case of SoM, I believe we’re seeing at least a partial case of being geometry/ROP influenced.
Unfortunately for AMD, the minimum framerate situation isn’t quite as good as the averages. These framerates aren’t bad – the R9 Fury X is always over 30fps – but even accounting for the higher variability of minimum framerates, they’re trailing the GTX 980 Ti by 13-15% with Ultra quality settings. Interestingly at 4K with Very High quality settings the minimum framerate gap is just 3%, in which case what we are most likely seeing is the impact of running Ultra settings with only 4GB of VRAM. The 4GB cards don’t get punished too much for it, but for R9 Fury X and its 4GB of HBM, it is beginning to crack under the pressure of what is admittedly one of our more VRAM-demanding games.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
mikato - Tuesday, July 7, 2015 - link
Wow very interesting, thanks bugsy. I hope those guys at the various forums can work out the details and maybe a reputable tech reviewer will take a look.OrphanageExplosion - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
I'm still a bit perplexed about how AMD gets an absolute roasting for CrossFire frame-pacing - which only impacted a tiny amount of users - while the sub-optimal DirectX 11 driver (which will affect everyone to varying extents in CPU-bound scenarios) doesn't get anything like the same level of attention.I mean, AMD commands a niche when it comes to the value end of the market, but if you're combining a budget CPU with one of their value GPUs, chances are that in many games you're not going to see the same kind of performance you see from benchmarks carried out on mammoth i7 systems.
And here, we've reached a situation where not even the i7 benchmarking scenario can hide the impact of the driver on a $650 part, hence the poor 1440p performance (which is even worse at 1080p). Why invest all that R&D, time, effort and money into this mammoth piece of hardware and not improve the driver so we can actually see what it's capable of? Is AMD just sitting it out until DX12?
harrydr - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
With the black screen problem of r9 graphic cards not easy to support amd.Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
Because lying to customers about VRAM performance, ROP count, and cache size is a far better way to conduct business.Oh, and the 970's specs are still false on Nvidia's website (claims 224 GB/s but that is impossible because of the 28 GB/s partition and the XOR contention — the more the slow partition is used the closer the other partition can get to the theoretical speed of 224 but the more it's used the more the faster partition is slowed by the 28 GB/s sloth — so a catch-22).
It's pretty amazing that Anandtech came out with a "Correcting the Specs" article but Nvidia is still claiming false numbers on their website.
Peichen - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
And yet 970 is still faster. Nvidia is more efficient with resources than they let people on.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
The XOR contention and 28 GB/s sure is efficiency. If only the 8800 GT could have had VRAM that slow back in 2007.Gunbuster - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
Came for the chizow, was not disappointed.chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
:)madwolfa - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
"Throw a couple of these into a Micro-ATX SFF PC, and it will be the PSU, not the video cards, that become your biggest concern".I think the biggest concern here would be to fit a couple of 120mm radiators.
TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
My current Micro-ATX case has room for dual 120mm rads and a 240mm rad. plenty of room there