The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 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.
When the R9 Fury X launched, one of the games it struggled with was Battlefield 4, where the GTX 980 Ti took a clear lead. However for the launch of the R9 Fury, things are much more in AMD’s favor. The two R9 Fury cards have a lead just shy of 10% over the GTX 980, roughly in-line with their price tag difference. As a result of that difference AMD needs to win in more or less every game by 10% to justify the R9 Fury’s higher price, and we’re starting things off exactly where AMD needs to be for price/performance parity.
Looking at the absolute numbers, we’re going to see AMD promote the R9 Fury as a 4K card, but even with Battlefield 4 I feel this is a good example of why it’s better suited for high quality 1440p gaming. The only way the R9 Fury can maintain an average framerate over 50fps (and thereby reasonable minimums) with a 4K resolution is to drop to a lower quality setting. Otherwise at just over 60fps, it’s in great shape for a 1440p card.
As for the R9 Fury X comparison, it’s interesting how close the R9 Fury gets. The cut-down card is never more than 7% behind the R9 Fury X. Make no mistake, the R9 Fury X is meaningfully faster, but scenarios such as these question whether it’s worth the extra $100.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
If you still can't understand numbers but only can understand bar colors, I can sum up things for you for the same game (Crysys 3) also for the techpowerup review at 2560x1440 (the resolution for this kind of cards):At 780Ti presentation (nov 2013)
780ti 27
290X 26.3
At Fuxy X presentation (so, last week):
780ti 29.3
290X 29.4
So the 290X passed from -0.7fps to +0.1fps... WOW! That is a miracle!!!!!
Only a fanboy should think about that, or one that does not understand benchmarks numbers, can't interpret them and can only see bar length/relative positions.
You see a similar trend with Battlefield 3, where the 290X from -3fps became -0.3fps. And both cards have raised their FPS.
So, yes, AMD recovered a fraction of nothing and nvidia didn't crippled anything.
You have also not noted that in the meantime AMD changed the 290X policy on BIOS and custom, so all cards have become "uber" and better custom radiators allowed the card not to be throttled. So the advantage of this performance is reserved for those that have bought these cards, not for those that have bought the "not sampled" reference ones (can you remember the issue about those cards in retail market that have quite different performances with respect to those send to reviewers?). Yes, another miracle...
These are the MYTH I like reading about that only fanboy can sustain. These are the type of arguments that let you clearly spot a fanboy in the group.
CiccioB - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
So, where are the facts sustaining your myth? I can't see them and it seems you can't provide them either.Yes, 780Ti a crappy investment... it was good the 290X with stuttering all over the place that still continues today with DX9 games.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Thank you CiccioB, I was wondering if another sane person was here.loguerto - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
This is the primary reason why i buy AMD, because i am not willing to change my hardware every year i brought a 290x in 2013 and in that period it was neck to neck with the 780 ti, after nearly two years the 290x destroys the 780 ti and beats constantly even the 970, which at it's release was ahead. The 970 remained there with the performance meanwhile the 290x continued improving. I am so glad i brought the 290x.CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
You are a poor man with no clue on what it is buying. Your justification for buying the cheaper card on the market are quite pitiful.I bet you can't report a single case where Kepler run faster before than it is today. Nor can't you evaluate how much this miraculous" AMD drivers have improved your gaming experience.
Can you? Let's see these numbers.
If not, well, just don't go on with this king of talking because it really picture you (all AMD fanboys) more ridiculous than you already are.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
What the HELL are you babbling about ?The 980 wasn't realeased THEN at your "proof link" and the 290x is winning over the 780...
WHAT FANTASY HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF OF YOU AMD FANBOY... TIME WILL NOT HEAL THE FURY AND FURY X LOSSES !
mikato - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
I agree. This would make a fantastic article - and a unique critical thinking subject that Anandtech is well positioned to undertake and is known for. It would certainly generate traffic and be linked to like crazy, hint hint.ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury offers between 8% and 17% better performance than the GTX 980, depending on if we’re looking at 4K or 1440p""I don’t believe the R9 Fury is a great 4K card"
"in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance."
"This doesn’t make either card a notably better value"
So at resolutions under 4K, which are the applications you recommend for the R9 Fury, it performs 17% better than the GTX 980 for 10% more price, and yet you conclude it is not a better value? Help me out here. It would be more accurate to say that neither card is a better value for 4K gaming, where the difference was indeed 8%. Any resolution below that, the Fury X is indeed a better value.
Ryan Smith - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
At 1440p the Fury X is 8% faster for 10% more cost. From a value standpoint that's a wash.At 4K the lead is upwards of 17%, but on an absolute basis it's a bit too slow if you're serious about 4K.
ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Thanks for the clarification. Also, I really appreciate the inclusion of the 7970 data, as I currently run a 3.5 yr old reference version of that card.