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
Ryan Smith - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
The issue covered in that thread (if you follow it up completely) turned out to be a bug in Battlefield 4, rather than some kind of driver issue or real image quality difference between NV and AMD. The author of the video, Gregster, went back and was able to find and correct the problem; Battlefield 4 was having a mild freak-out when he switched video cards. This is something of a known issue with the game (it can be very picky) and does not occur with our testing setup.Meanwhile, though you don't see it published here, we do look for image quality issues, and if we saw something we would post about it.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Maybe nader would really enjoy the image quality and gameplay enhancements of PhysX.I mean if smoke from a fire is important.... PhysX could blow him off his chair.
I know, it might not work, since the point is amd must be superior.
Michael Bay - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
>literally one game>developed by amd suckers at that
You`re literally grasping at straws.
Ranger101 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link
Relax man, every now and then you have to take a comprehensive AMD win in your stride :)FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
"the smoke of the fire" ? ROFLMAOTHAT'S LIKE SOME PHYSX CRAP ! ONLY PHYSX IS 100 TIMES MORE...
Now the amd fanboy loves one little puffy of smoke from a campfire or some crap, but PhysX - forget it !
ROFLMAO SO NOT CONVINCING.
AS118 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Nice! But I'm looking forward to the Nano. These air-Fury cards won't fit in my case anyway, and apparently the Nano is more powerful than a 290x.jay401 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Well, Sapphire has a history of fans that die early on their cards and Asus has a rep for poor customer service, so that (waiting for other vendors) on top of the price being at least $50 too high means I'll wait until the initial rush is over and prices come down to market rates instead of early adopter premiums.jay401 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
I mean, really, they're charging $50 less for a card that's up to 17% slower IN ADDITION to not having the expensive water cooling block on it? No, it needs to be closer to $100 cheaper. And then on top of that, both Fury cards are $50 too expensive based on how they perform and their missing features compared to NVidia's. This Fury non-X should have debuted at $499, and likely dropped to $474 within a month, while the Fury-X drops to $599 initially, followed by $574 within a month. Then AMD would actually be what it used to be: a better bang-for-the-buck than NVidia.jay401 - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Btw, "$50 less" was assuming the Fury X was $599 like it should have been since launch.Asomething - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Question, what features are amd missing that nvidia have, and no gameworks/physx dont really count because amd can use those features despite them running bad on the hardware because its a nvidia feature and amd arent allowed to optimize for it.