The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 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 layered 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.
In our R9 Fury X review, we pointed out how AMD is GPU limited in this game below 4K, and while the R9 Fury’s lower performance essentially mitigates that to a certain extent, it doesn’t change the fact that AMD is still CPU limited here. The end result is that at 4K the R9 Fury is only 2% ahead of the GTX 980 – less than it needs to be to justify the price premium – and at 1440p it’s fully CPU-limited and trailing the GTX 980 by 14%.
On an absolute basis AMD isn’t faring too poorly here, but AMD will need to continue dealing with and resolving CPU bottlenecks on DX11 titles if they want the R9 Fury to stay ahead of NVIDIA, as DX11 games are not going away quite yet.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
siliconwars - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Any concept of performance per dollar?D. Lister - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The Fury is 8% faster than a stock 980 and 10% more expensive. How does that "performance per dollar" thing work again? :pNagorak - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
By that token the 980 is not good performance per dollar either. It's sonething like a 390 non-x topping the charts. These high end cards are always a rip off.D. Lister - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
"These high end cards are always a rip off."That, is unfortunately a fact. :(
siliconwars - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The Asus Strix is 9.4% faster than the 980 with 20% worse power consumption. I wouldn't call that "nowhere near" Maxwell tbh and the Nano will be even closer if not ahead.Dazmillion - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Nobody is talking about the fact that the Fury cards which AMD claims is for 4k gaming doesnt have a 4k@60Hz port!!David_K - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
So the displayport 1.2 connector isn't capable of sending 2160p60hz. That's new.Dazmillion - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The fury cards dont come with HDMI 2.0ES_Revenge - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
Which is true but not the only way to get that resolution & refresh. Lack of HDMI 2.0 and full HEVC features is certainly another sore point for Fury. For the most part HDMI 2.0 affects the consumer AV/HT world though, not so much the PC world. In the PC world, gaming monitors capable of those res/refresh rates are going to have DP on them which makes HDMI 2.0 extraneous.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
I'll second ES_Revenge on the DP for PC Gaming. The world of 4K Home Monitors being absent with HDMI 2.0 is something we'll live with until the next major revision.I don't even own a 4K Home Monitor. Not very popular in sales either.
Every single one of them showing up on Amazon are handicapped with that SMART TV crap.
I want a 4K Dumb Device that is the output Monitor with FreeSync and nothing else.
I'll use the AppleTV for the `smart' part.