The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTSynthetics
As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. Since R9 Fury is a cut-down and lower clocked Fiji part, what we’re expecting here is a significant shader/texture hit, with a much smaller hit to tessellation and pixel throughput.
TessMark scores more or less perfectly scale with clockspeed in this case. The R9 Fury is almost precisely 5% behind the R9 Fury X.
As for 3DMark Vantage, the performance hits are in-line with expectations. The R9 Fury takes a pretty significant hit to texturing performance due to the combination of lost texture units and the clockspeed reduction, while pixel throughput trails by just under 5%. This indicates that at least for the purposes of the 3DMark test, the R9 Fury series is ROP bottlenecked rather than memory bandwidth bottlenecked, a consequence of AMD’s excellent delta color compression.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Oh, gee, forgot, it's not amd's fault ... it was "developers and access" which is not amd's fault, either... of course...OMFG
redraider89 - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
What's your excuse for being such an idiotic, despicable and ugly intel/nvidia fanboy? I don't know, maybe your parents? Somewhere you went wrong.OldSchoolKiller1977 - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link
I am sorry and NVIDIA fan boys resort to name calling.... what was it that you said and I quote "Hypocrite" :)redraider89 - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Your problem is deeper than just that you like intel/nvidia since you apparently hate people who don't like those, and ONLY because they like something different than you do.ant6n - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
A third way to look at it is that maybe AMD did it right.Let's say the chip is built from 80% stream processors (by area), the most redundant elements. If some of those functional elements fail during manufacture, they can disable them and sell it as the cheaper card. If something in the other 20% of the chip fails, the whole chip may be garbage. So basically you want a card such that if all the stream processors are functional, the other 20% become the bottleneck, whereas if some of the stream processors fail and they have to sell it as a simple Fury, then the stream processors become the bottleneck.
thomascheng - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
That is probably AMD's smart play. Fury was always the intended card. Perfect cards will be the X and perhaps less perfect card will be the Nano.FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
"fury was always the intended card"ROFL
amd fanboy out much ?
I mean it is unbelievable, what you said, and that you said it.
theduckofdeath - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link
Just shut up, Bubby.akamateau - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
Anand has been running DX12 benchmarks last spring. When they compared Radeon 290x to GTX 980 Ti nVidia ordered them to stop. That is why no more DX12 benchmarks have been run.Intel and nVidia are at a huge disadvantage with DX12 and Mantle.
The reason:
AMD IP: Asynchronous Shader Pipelines and Asynchronous Compute Engines.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
We saw mantle benchmarks so your fantasy is a bad amd fanboy delusion.