Review AMD Radeon R9 Fury X reviewed!

veryrarium

Cable-Tie Ninja
Jun 6, 2015
144
44
I can't see that photo. Is it the same one linked in post #6 of this thread?
Showing the same PCB + a measuring tape along with it. Here is an imgur link in case you're blocked for some reason:
http://i.imgur.com/luSEYoo.jpg

there would have been significant complaint from reviewers if the fan was running anywhere near 3000, as 2150 is already quite loud.
Exactly, and most reviewers said the fan was running quiet at load, that's why I wondered why they went for the 3000rpm version.

It is a fascinating, really-good looking (IMO) board.
I agree, but it would have been even nicer if they had gotten rid of the two remaining electrolytic caps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vittra

Vittra

Airflow Optimizer
May 11, 2015
358
85
Yeah, their choice regarding the fan is perplexing. The only thing I can think of is maybe they were forward thinking, expecting some people to be OK with higher acoustics and changing the fan speed in CCC or 3rd party software (Afterburner, etc). I can't see many people yanking the connection and plugging it into a motherboard header or directly to Sata/Molex, but possible.

Thanks for the imgur link!
 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
Do you guys know how thick is that radiator and fan?
I did some measuring in Photoshop and am very confidant it's a 35mm thick radiator. So rad + fan = 60mm
EDIT: apparently, it's 65mm according to Guru3D's review.



https://www.facebook.com/EKWaterBlo...2927101761329/869595603094472/?type=1&theater

Mmm...single slot blocks
Oh dear. This demands a quad-fire build in a Kimera Nova :D
With all that oomph it should be adequately called "The Habanero" :D

Must look away !

Dual GPUs in only 230mm, that's crazy.
Argh MUST LOOK AWAY ! All these nice things trolling my brain's pleasure center.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4RTEX

PlayfulPhoenix

Founder of SFF.N
SFFLAB
Chimera Industries
Moderator
Gold Supporter
Feb 22, 2015
1,049
1,960
HardOCP published yesterday, and it's easily the harshest of reviews I've seen so far:
The new AMD Fiji GPU and Fury X video card looks awesome on paper, but has underwhelmed and disappointed us when it comes to real world gameplay. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X feels like a proof of concept for HBM technology...

Usually trying to decide between two video cards at the same price point is a wash, with very even and split performance. However, this is not the case this time with the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X and GeForce GTX 980 Ti. There is a definite pattern that leads to one video card being the best value for the money, and it is GeForce GTX 980 Ti, not the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X.

Limited VRAM for a flagship $649 video card, sub-par gaming performance for the price, and limited display support options with no HDMI 2.0 and no DVI port. To be honest, we aren't entirely sure who the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is really built for? The AMD Radeon Fury X is a confusing product, like a technology demo not fully realized, a showcase for HBM only but with no real substance. The AMD Radeon Fury X looks to be a great marketing showcase, but its prowess starts waning when you consider its value to gamers and hardware enthusiasts.


I wouldn't be so down on the card, but their benchmarking numbers pretty consistently have the Fury X trailing the 980Ti.
 
Last edited:

veryrarium

Cable-Tie Ninja
Jun 6, 2015
144
44
OK I found an answer to my own question; the fan never went above 1300rpm in Tom'shardware review:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-8.html
Interesting for me to know the fan could go as low as below 1000rpm, as I did a PWM mod of 3000rpm GT and obtained its fan curve on Maximus IV Gene-Z using the FanXpert (measured twice) a while ago:


By the way the Tom'shardware review link above includes thermal imaging measurements at a gaming load, so does the guru3D review and they exhibit huge differences for the backplate temps and the radiator temps. Of course their test setups are not the same but still it makes me wonder if both of them are doing things right.
 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
Hmm maybe this was more of a rush job than I thought. If performance is all over the place because the cooling is too, this might mean this card needs some work. But so did the 290X in my opinion, the reference cooler was crappy and the fan curve (or lack thereof) was not going to help much.

Oh well, AMD cards are like rough diamonds I guess.
 

Vittra

Airflow Optimizer
May 11, 2015
358
85
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041574363&postcount=2499

See post date. That comment stuck with me through to Fury's release and appears to be very true. I am hoping Pascal and Arctic Islands see close launch dates to each other, but at any rate, both should be rather interesting.

Richard Huddy also made a comment in a video that the R9 Nano will slot in somewhere between 290x and 390x performance, which, for me, is simply not enough.

 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
It's due to all the fabs failing below 28nm to produce anything worthwhile that we are in this mess, with 14nm for 2016 (hopefully) getting back on track.
Considering Nvidia's 900-series and AMD's 300-series (including Fiji) are basically McGuyver'ed from the previous generation and the one before that, I can't wait for the real next gen cards to arrive.
 

rawr

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 1, 2015
137
10
Richard Huddy also made a comment in a video that the R9 Nano will slot in somewhere between 290x and 390x performance, which, for me, is simply not enough.
Well, what did you expect? The card only has one 8-pin power connector.

Furthermore the most powerful ITX card we've had so far is the GTX 970. Without any huge leaps in GPU technology (fab etc.) since that, I don't see what kind of stellar performance you were anticipating.
 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
I was amazed we'd see an AMD card in that segment at all with the performance/watt ratio they have had for a while. 290X performance with ~150W TDP ? I'd call that impressive.
 

Vittra

Airflow Optimizer
May 11, 2015
358
85
I didn't have time to clarify my post earlier as it was made in a rush, but you were on the right track. The 970's been out since September, a bit later for it's smaller SFF forms. As such, the R9 Nano brings nothing particularly new to the table - 9 months later - other than offering an AMD alternative. Reflecting on this essentially killed the enthusiasm I had for it's possibilities, because it does not particularly offer anything different. I will admit it does conform to sizing in terms of how tall the PCB is, which I am glad to see. The 970 Mini tall PCB stuff from Asus and MSI is getting a bit out of hand, and in fact it's across their whole range at this point. I don't see the 3.5gb vs 4gb (HBM or not) as an issue, since neither card will likely matter when the next gen ones come anyway.

I'm aware of the 28nm node's longevity and have actually have made similar to others on different forums who had unrealistic expectations of the 980, 980 Ti and Fury X. Most notably, those overclocking cards like the 780 Ti and 980 see a very small benefit upgrading between them, even the two older to the 980 Ti (even with it also overclocked). Typically around 15% at best.

I can see quite a few people in both camps being rather vexed if they purchase cards from either side with long term in mind, and realize that next-gen will bring full DX12 compliance to both sides (neither has it fully, lacking in different areas), HDCP 2.2 compliance, HBM 2.0, die shrink for performance and efficiencies, smaller form factors, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJVR1

rawr

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 1, 2015
137
10
I still don't see what you were expecting though. What did you want, 980 ti performance in an ITX form factor?

Being between the 290x and the 390x should make it faster than the 970 (not necessarily by a lot), which should really suffice until next gen.
 

Vittra

Airflow Optimizer
May 11, 2015
358
85
That was worded poorly I guess, you could say I was hopeful, but I really had no expectation beyond the 2x performance/watt vs 290x figure initially given by Lisa Sui and the AMD slide they had shown, so I suppose between 290x and 390x is actually better than that initial figure. I have very little interest in the current crop of cards, so my expectations as it were have already been set on next gen since around the time of Kyle's comment that I quoted.

Though I didn't particularly like WC in the M1 with the 690 last year, I have had it in my head since then that I'd like to put a smaller card in the case that was powerful and watercooled so that I could also fit an internal reservoir in there, but the card does need to be powerful enough to necessitate WC and also provide the frames for 144hz panel + Gsync/Freesync OR variable refresh rate , otherwise I'll just go with a Crossfire/SLI build in the Kimera. In that sense you are correct that I'm looking for a minimum of 980 Ti performance in a small form factor for ITX when Arctic Islands or Pascal comes around.
 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
I'm mainly excited that the focus on SFF GPU cards and systems is coming from the large brands, along with the new SFX PSUs and relatively large selection of mITX boards. This in term will hopefully halt the futile evolution of bigger and hotter cards. GPUs seemed to be exempt from efficiency focus not so long ago.
 

rawr

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 1, 2015
137
10
This in term will hopefully halt the futile evolution of bigger and hotter cards.
I don't know. The thing is, the bigger cards (with bigger coolers) tend to be cooler, don't they? Gigabyte's G1/Windforce, Sapphire's Tri-x/Vapor-x, Asus' Strix...

When people think of smaller cards, they tend to consider the heat and noise problems (at least from what I've seen). Neither Asus' nor MSI's ITX cards in the NV 600/700 days were particularly impressive (in the aforementioned qualities), although it is getting better (Gigabyte's ITX offerings, hopefully R9 Nano).
 

Phuncz

Lord of the Boards
Editorial Staff
Moderator
Gold Supporter
May 9, 2015
5,210
4,549
When I mean bigger and hotter cards, I am referring to the reference designs, because the OEMs can build their cards how they want.

Case in point:

MSI GTX 760 mini ITX
170mm long dual-slot card with slightly larger height


inno3D GTX 760 iChill HerculeZ 3000

Almost 300mm long triple-slot behemoth

And that's why I applaud AMD for releasing small cards as reference to show the consumers AND manufacturers there is more to the GPU world than bloat to put inside huge ATX cases.
 
Last edited:

rawr

SFF Lingo Aficionado
Mar 1, 2015
137
10
If you are referring to reference coolers, then why have you shown some aftermarket coolers?

And although yes, the second card is a behemoth, it will undoubtedly run much cooler and quieter than the first. So I think that it still has its place in the market.

Also the MSI card is a bit taller than reference (like the Asus)