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
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
i'VE ALREADY SEEN A DOZEN REFUSE TO BUY FURY BECAUSE OF IT.They have a 4k TV, they say, that requires the hdmi 2.0...
SO ALL YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSES MEAN EXACTLY NOTHING. THOSE WITH 4K READY SCREENS ARE BAILING TO NVIDIA ONLY !
YOU DENYING REALITY WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE FOR AMD.
They can screw off longer with enough pinheads blabbering bs.
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
It's such a massive failure, and so big a fat obtuse lie, it's embarrassing to even bring up, spoiling the party that is fun if you pretend and fantasize enough, and ignore just how evil amd is.hdmi 2.0 - nope ! way to go what a great 4k gaming card ! 4gb ram - suddenly that is more than enough and future proof !
ROFL - ONLY AMD FANBOYS
dave1231 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
That's with HBM? Lol.medi03 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
With all respect, 300 vs 360 watt at load and 72 vs 75 watt idle doesn't deserve "consumes MUCH more power", Ryan, and that even if it wasn't a faster card.Socius - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
For total system power draw? Yeah it does....because the power usage gap percentage is lessened by the addition of the system power usage (minus the cards) in the total figure. So if the numbers were 240W vs 300W, for example, that's 25% more power usage. And that's with a 20-30W reduction in power usage by using HBM. So it shows how inefficient the GPU design actually is, even when asking it with HBM power reduction and the addition of total system power draw instead of calculating it by card.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
Personally, I have an RM 1000W Corsair Power Supply. Sorry, but if you're using < 850W supply units I suggest you buck up and upgrade.Socius - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
I think you replied to the wrong person here. I have 2 PSUs in my PC. A 6-rail 1600W unit and a single rail 1250W unit.Peichen - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The fail that’s AMD’s Fury series makes my MSI Gaming 4G GTX980 looks even better. I only paid $430 for it and it gets to 1490/1504 boosted at stock voltage. Essentially it means I got a card as fast as Fury OC at $100+ cheaper, uses far less power and in my system for months earlier.I am very glad I went Nvidia after 5 year with AMD/ATI graphics and didn’t wait months for Fiji.
FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
There we have it, and it's still the better deal. It's STILL THE BETTER DEAL AND IT'S AVAILABLE.But we're supposed to believe amd is cheap and faster... and just as good in everything else...
I seriously can't think of a single thing amd isn't behind on.
MobiusPizza - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury will be launching with an MSRP of $549, $100 below the R9 Fury X. This price puts the R9 Fury up against much different completion* than its older sibling; "It's competition not completion