The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTThe Test
On a brief note, since last month’s R9 Fury X review, AMD has reunified their driver base. Catalyst 15.7, released on Wednesday, extends the latest branch of AMD’s drivers to the 200 series and earlier, bringing with it all of the optimizations and features that for the past few weeks have been limited to the R9 Fury series and the 300 series.
As a result we’ve gone back and updated our results for all of the AMD cards featured in this review. Compared to the R9 Fury series launch driver, the performance and behavior of the R9 Fury series has not changed, nor were we expecting it to. Meanwhile AMD’s existing 200/8000/7000 series GCN cards have seen a smattering of performance improvements that are reflected in our results.
| CPU: | Intel Core i7-4960X @ 4.2GHz |
| Motherboard: | ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional |
| Power Supply: | Corsair AX1200i |
| Hard Disk: | Samsung SSD 840 EVO (750GB) |
| Memory: | G.Skill RipjawZ DDR3-1866 4 x 8GB (9-10-9-26) |
| Case: | NZXT Phantom 630 Windowed Edition |
| Monitor: | Asus PQ321 |
| Video Cards: | AMD Radeon R9 Fury X AMD Radeon R9 290X AMD Radeon R9 285 AMD Radeon HD 7970 ASUS STRIX R9 Fury Sapphire Tri-X R9 Fury OC NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA Release 352.90 Beta AMD Catalyst Cat 15.7 |
| OS: | Windows 8.1 Pro |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
Makaveli - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Why would it perform the same this Fury is not throttling due to heat it has less performance due to having less hardware.tviceman - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
So it looks like OC'd GTX 980 @ 1440p is going to be faster, on average, than an OC'd Fury @ 1440p.....refin3d - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Potentially, we don't really know what is going to happen exactly with the cards being voltage locked.tviceman - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
That's easy to deduce: ~8% more OC performance for 150-200 more watts power consumption.ToTTenTranz - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
No Hawaii in the compute tests?Ryan Smith - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Whoops. Forgot to include them when generating the graphs. I'll go fill those intitan13131 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
It would be cool if damaged chips weren't all disabled to the same level i.e. only the faulty parts were disabled on each chip. Then amd could charge a little more for something they have already produced and we would have access to cards closer to the performance of the fury x (with a little overclocking) for less. Assuming the ref cooler can handle the extra heat.Asomething - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
then they would have to market, package and ship the extra cards as well as optimize for another chip, used to be you could unlock the salvage chips if the damages were not too bad (some fully unlocked into the full chips in some cases where chips are cut simply to meet the demand for the cut chips) but amd and nvidia now laser off the disabled parts to stop that.Kevin G - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
This really highlights the idea that AMD should have focused on increasing ROP count over the massive amount of shaders. HBM not only increased bandwidth but the delta color compression increased effective bandwidth as well but AMD didn't alter the number of ROPs in the design.extide - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
It's not the ROPs. Look at the 3dmark tests, it tops the Pixel throughput charts.What it needs is more geometry power, not ROPs. Look at the tessellation results, the Furys can't even keep up with a GTX 780. THAT is their issue, they need more geometry horsepower.