The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTGRID Autosport
For the racing game in our benchmark suite we have Codemasters’ GRID Autosport. Codemasters continues to set the bar for graphical fidelity in racing games, delivering realistic looking environments with layed with additional graphical effects. Based on their in-house EGO engine, GRID Autosport includes a DirectCompute based advanced lighting system in its highest quality settings, which incurs a significant performance penalty on lower-end cards but does a good job of emulating more realistic lighting within the game world.
Unfortunately for AMD, after a streak of wins and ties for AMD, things start going off the rails with GRID, very off the rails.
At 4K Ultra this is AMD’s single biggest 4K performance deficit; the card trails the GTX 980 Ti by 14%. The good news is that in the process the card cracks 60fps, so framerates are solid on an absolute basis, though there are still going to be some frames below 60fps for racing purists to contend with.
Where things get really bad is at 1440p, in a situation we have never seen before in a high-end AMD video card review. The R9 Fury X gets pummeled here, trailing the GTX 980 Ti by 30%, and even falling behind the GTX 980 and GTX 780 Ti. The reason it’s getting pummeled is because the R9 Fury X is CPU bottlenecked here; no matter what resolution we pick, the R9 Fury X can’t spit out more than about 82fps here at Ultra quality.
With GPU performance outgrowing CPU performance year after year, this is something that was due to happen sooner or later, and is a big reason that low-level APIs are about to come into the fold. And if it was going to happen anywhere, it would happen with a flagship level video card. Still, with an overclocked Core i7-4960X driving our testbed, this is also one of the most powerful systems available with respect to CPU performance, so AMD’s drivers are burning an incredible amount of CPU time here.
Ultimately GRID serves to cement our concerns about AMD’s performance at 1440p, as it’s very possible that this is the tip of the iceberg. DirectX 11 will go away eventually, but it will still take some time. In the meantime there are a number of 1440p gamers out there, especially with R9 Fury X otherwise being such a good fit for high frame rate 1440p gaming. Perhaps the biggest issue here is that this makes it very hard to justify pairing 1440p 144Hz monitors with AMD’s GPUs, as although 82.6fps is fine for a 60Hz monitor, these CPU issues are making it hard for AMD to deliver framerates more suitable/desirable for those high performance monitors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
TallestJon96 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
This card and the 980 ti meet two interesting milestones in my mind. First, this is the first time 1080p isn't even considered. Pretty cool to be at the point where 1080p is considered at bit of a low resolution for high end cards.Second, it's the point where we have single cards can play games at 4k, with higher graphical settings, and have better performance than a ps4. So at this point, if a ps4 is playable, than 4k gaming is playable.
It's great to see higher and higher resolutions.
XtAzY - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Geez these benchies are making my 580 looking ancient.MacGyver85 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Idle power does not start things off especially well for the R9 Fury X, though it’s not too poor either. The 82W at the wall is a distinct increase over NVIDIA’s latest cards, and even the R9 290X. On the other hand the R9 Fury X has to run a CLLC rather than simple fans. Further complicating factors is the fact that the card idles at 300MHz for the core, but the memory doesn’t idle at all. HBM is meant to have rather low power consumption under load versus GDDR5, but one wonders just how that compares at idle.I'd like to see you guys post power consumption numbers with power to the pump cut at idle, to answer the questions you pose. I'm pretty sure the card is competitive without the pump running (but still with the fan to have an equal comparison). If not it will give us more of an insight in what improvements AMD can give to HBM in the future with regards to power consumption. But I'd be very suprised if they haven't dealt with that during the design phase. After all, power consumption is THE defining limit for graphics performance.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Idle power consumption isn't the defining limit. The article already said that the cooler keeps the temperature low while also keeping noise levels in check. The result of keeping the temperature low is that AMD can more aggressively tune for performance per watt.Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
This is a gaming card, not a card for casuals who spend most of their time with the GPU idling.Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
The other point which wasn't really made in the article is that the idle noise is higher but consider how many GPUs exhaust their heat into the case. That means higher case fan noise which could cancel out the idle noise difference. This card's radiator can be set to exhaust directly out of the case.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
It's an engineering card as much as it is for gaming. It's a great solid modeling card with OpenCL. The way AMD is building its driver foundation will pay off big in the next quarter.Nagorak - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
I don't know that I agree about that. Even people who game a lot probably use their computer for other things and it sucks to be using more watts while idle. That being said, the increase is not a whole lot.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
Gaming is a luxury activity. People who are really concerned about power usage would, at the very least, stick with a low-wattage GPU like a 750 Ti or something and turn down the quality settings. Or, if you really want to be green, don't do 3D gaming at all.MacGyver85 - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
That's not really true. I don't mind my gfx card pulling a lot of power while I'm gaming. But I want it to sip power when it's doing nothing. And since any card spends most of its time idling, idling is actually very important (if not most important) in overal (yearly) power consumption.Btw I never said that idle power consumption is the defining limit, I said power consumption is the defining limit. It's a give that any Watt you save while idling is generally a Watt of extra headroom when running at full power. The lower the baseline load the more room for actual, functional (graphics) power consumption. And as it turns out I was right in my assumption that the actual graphics card minus the cooler pump idle power consumption is competitive with nVidia's.