The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTCrysis 3
Still one of our most punishing benchmarks, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers and still holds the “most punishing shooter” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and that’s still without AA. Crysis 1 was an excellent template for the kind of performance required to drive games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2015.
A pure and strenuous DirectX 11 test, Crysis 3 in this case is a pretty decent bellwether for the overall state of the R9 Fury X. Once again the card trails the GTX 980 Ti, but not by quite as much as we saw in Battlefield 4. In this case the gap is 6-7% at 4K, and 12% at 1440p, not too far off of 4% and 10% respectively. This test hits the shaders pretty hard, so of our tried and true benchmarks I was expecting this to be one of the better games for AMD, so the results in a sense do end up as surprising.
In any case, on an absolute basis this is also a good example of the 4K quality tradeoff. R9 Fury X is fast enough to deliver 1440p at high quality settings over 60fps, or 4K with reduced quality settings over 60fps. Otherwise if you want 4K with high quality settings, the performance hit means a framerate average in just the 30s.
Otherwise the gains over the R9 290XU are quite good. The R9 Fury X picks up 38-40% at 4K, and 36% at 1440p. This trends relatively close to our 40% expectations for the card, reinforcing just how big of a leap the card is for AMD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
nader_21007 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
As an analyst , I Guarantee AMD’s Success by taking the following simple steps:1. To Stop wasting money on R&D investments altogether at once.
2. To employ a bunch of marketers like Chizow, N7, AMDesperate, . . . to Spread Rumors and bash best products of the competition, constantly.
3. To Invest saved money (R&D wasted money on new techs like HBM, Low level API Mantle, Premium water cooler, etc, etc) in Hardware Review sites to Magnify your products Strengths and the competition’s Weaknesses.
(Note: Consumers won’t judge your product against the competition in practice, They just accept what they see in Hardware Review sites & Forums)
I just gave these advices to some companies in the past, and believe me, one have the best CPU out there, and the other make the best GPU. Innovation is not an R&D’s fruth, it’s a Marketing FRUTH.
Please contact me for more details, Regards.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Astroturfing got Samsung smacked with a penalty, but a smart company would hire astroturfers who are good at disguising their bias, not obvious trolls.SanX - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
AMD only hope left is that company with better lithography like Samsung for example buy it entirely. You're welcome, Samsung. Hope you will not forget my as always brilliant advices.amro12 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Why no 970? 290? At least a 970, it's better than that 290x up there...Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Perhaps because the 970 should have been withdrawn from the market for fraud? It should have been relabeled the 965 and consumers who bought one should have been offered more than just a refund.Innokentij - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
To be from Oxford u seem to lack logical thinking.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
I'm logical enough to see a comment with no substance to it.chizow - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
Of course this is nonsense, if the 970 launched at its corrected specs, would you have a problem with its product placement? Of course not. But let's all act as if this is the first and last time a cut down ASIC is sold at a lower price:performance segment nonetheless!Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
Your post in no way rebuts what I wrote.Hxx - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
right because that 0.5 partition really hindered its performance lol. Lets face it , the 970 is an excellent performer with more vram than last gen nvidia's top dog (870 ti) and performing within 15% from nvidia's top tier gtx 980 for $200 less...what more there is to say?