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
OrphanageExplosion - Wednesday, July 8, 2015 - link
Anti-aliasing is required for the same reason that no AA still sticks out on 3D titles on an iPad, but in my experience with a 32-inch 4K Asus, post-process AA (SMAA, FXAA) does the job just fine.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
"the OS uses 3 GB to 3.5 GB"That's insane bloat.
Nerdsinc - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
I sincerely hope the Overclocking limitations are related to software, a $1000 card with liquid cooling ought to be able to pull higher clocks than that...yhselp - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
Out of curiosity, is it really possible for an Xbox One/PlayStation 4 game to take up over 4GB of memory just for graphics, since just 5GB total are usable for games?Refuge - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link
When ported to PC yes. That is because we usualyl get enhanced graphics settings that they do not.PC ports are also less efficient because of low budget ports. Which just compounds the issue more.
Computers have to be more powerful than their console counter parts in order to play equivalent games due to sloppy coding, and enhanced visual options.
ludikraut - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link
Lack of HDMI 2.0 support totally kills the card for me. Who the heck wants to look at 4K at 30Hz? Guess I'll be sticking with my GTX 970 for a while.l8r)
eodeot - Friday, July 31, 2015 - link
You didn't even mention AMDs poor power consumption while idle with multiple monitors or while playing back a video of any kind.For some reason AMD thinks that playing back 240p Youtube video requires 3d clocks and thus 3d power consumption, even if the video is paused.
AMD failed to address it for the past 5 years and you failed to mention it yet again. Nvidia fixed this long ago...
JJofLegend - Friday, October 14, 2016 - link
I recently got an AMD Fury X, but I'm running into an issue with my games. I've tried with Battlefield 4, Crisis 3, Quantum Break, ReCore, The Division, and they all have the same distortion. Any ideas or anyone that can make suggestions? I don't know how to trouble shoot this.Here is a screenshot of Crisis 3:
https://vjkc5g-ch3301.files.1drv.com/y3m_mcTTTddOj...