add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Released

philip

June 25, 2015

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X series video cards are now available at retailers. We're adding in new cards as they become available.

 

Part Links:

Review Roundup:

Comments

  • 54 months ago
  • 3 points

The Fury X would've made Nvidia sweat bullets had they not had Nvidia not had an amazing marketing team! What a business move to release that 980ti when it seemed to make no sense at first since it just seemed to kill the titan x... the result? killed any momentum AMD would've without a doubt gained at the Fury X price point.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Real quick I'd just like to say that according to some post I've read (forgive me for not having a link right now) that it seems that some reviews/benchmarks were apparently done with the wrong drivers.

There are a couple of websites that have their reviews with correct drivers and the results are better overall from the ones that got the wrong driver, making it closer to or in some cases beating the 980ti, in 4k that is, in 1080 and 1440 not so much.

However it seems AMD still over hyped this one sadly, and that's coming from someone who's neutral to AMD/NVidia war, but let's try to be fair here and wait to see in AMD puts out something that shows us the real horsepower in the Fury X because right now we're not getting it.

That being said I'm still interested in how the normal Fury will handle vs the 980 since air cooling means that companies will want to put their own fans on it rather than a water cooler with their logo slapped on.

  • 54 months ago
  • 0 points

AMD is always late or unprepared with drivers. Look at Witcher 3. AMD fans were blaming Nvidia and Gameworks for poor performance when a driver released 3 weeks later everything was fixed. Even games made with AMD backing generally run the same with equivalent "green" hardware.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Even games made with AMD backing generally run the same with equivalent "green" hardware.

That's because AMD doesn't use ****** closed-source exclusive technology to get an edge on nvidia.

  • 53 months ago
  • 1 point

Like Witcher 3, where AMD fans cried about Gameworks when all AMD had to do was release a driver? Which they did! Two weeks too late! (Not yelling, just placing emphasis).

  • 54 months ago
  • -1 points

I also heard that some reviewers got drivers that couldn't even interface with the card, causing a black screen. These same drivers were recommended by AMD. Not sure if this is true, but if it is, then I think it's safe to say AMD tripped over their own feet on this one......

  • 54 months ago
  • -1 points

Not sure about that as I hadn't heard about it until now, but I still woudn't be surprised either.

  • 54 months ago
  • -1 points

This has already been proven false. Just fanboys making up excuses for the dissapointing benchmarks.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

:) I like this card. I agree with jipster though... This card was very hyped up to be something otherwordly. Which it was not, however it IS a very good card with low temps, or so I assume.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

I would like to note to all the people that compare this to the stock 980ti in terms of performance, remember that for 650$, you're getting a water block on the card already, something you would have to pay about another 100$ for on the 980ti, and I think at least that the two should be compared to each other with similar coolers.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Since it is water-cooled it should have better performance seeing as how it is a flagship card. I would rather they give me an air-cooled card so that I could add it to my water loop. Water to water, the 980ti would probably inch even further ahead.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

I'll likely be getting this. I like the hardware from both AMD and Nvidia, but both in my own experiences with them and just in their general treatment of the consumer base, Nvidia has a lot to answer for.

Though I will say, the fact that this card is dual slot while having nothing but a closed loop water cooler without any fans on the card is a crying shame. It so easily could have been single because this card was designed without the stacked DVI port nonsense. Too many PCIe slots get blocked off and wasted by dual slot cards.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point
  • 53 months ago
  • 1 point

This or the 980ti???

  • 53 months ago
  • 1 point

When is the air cooled Fury going to be listed on this site?

  • 54 months ago
  • 0 points

Yeah, I think the Fury is better value considering there will be non reference versions, and it's supposed to have the same or simar specs (haven't checked their site yet for anything), but be 100 bucks cheaper, so it should at least outperform the 980 at the same price range, like the Fury X should have done with the 980 Ti.

  • 54 months ago
  • 0 points

The Fury X is 350$ cheaper than the titan x and will out perform it once drivers are being developed.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

I guess it's a technology demonstration?

But it's just not living up to all the hype the 'leaked' benchmarks proved and the hype AMD drew upon themselves. So it'll basically be down to what brand you prefer and that's not what I wanted personally because I prefer nVidia (CUDA for Adobe is better, sorry).

Maybe someday AMD's tech will really ripen.

  • 54 months ago
  • 0 points

Where else does Fury X win below 4K, because I have yet to see one instance. It is firmly between the 980 and 980Ti at 1440p and below, only trading blows with the 980Ti at 4K, where neither are really delivering what I consider acceptable framerates yet...though technically "playable" now.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

I wonder if DX12 will help seperate the men from the boys at 4K?

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

It was also developed by Hynix so hopefully Nvidia can use this tech in a couple of years. Power consumption on the Fury X is lower than many of the 200 series and if Nvidia combines that with Maxwell, for example, we may see high-end cards with wattage in the mid 100's.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 10 points

I doubt the 980 ti is as fast as mayweather. He was running so fast that whole time that I kept thinking that he should give up boxing and just be a runner.

  • 54 months ago
  • 7 points

He was running so fast that whole time that I kept thinking that he should give up boxing and just be a runner

that's the reason why I don't watch boxing... in UFC you don't get points for running..

  • 54 months ago
  • 4 points

Exactly. Everyone was hoping for a Manny Pacquiao fight ft Mayweather, but instead we got a Mayweather fight ft Pacquiao. Pacquiao is a good boxer, and people love him because he stands and fights. Unfortunately that doesn't mix too well with Mayweather's tendency to run, land a few light punches, then keep running. It made for a pretty boring fight.

  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

makes me think of roadrunner and coyote..

  • 54 months ago
  • 4 points

Basically, except road runner is an ******* in this case

  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

Holy ****! Shots fired.

  • 54 months ago
  • -1 points

Lol so I guess Pacquiao is like the Fury X. Uses alot more energy but can't quite stomp the competition Lol

  • 54 months ago
  • 7 points

the fury X is on par with the 980 ti and both cost around the same... Its not like AMD is stealing from you if you get one.... At least they didn't cheat ppl with 3.5 VRAM and then said some stupid excuse..

  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

It's water-cooled vs 980ti's air-cooler. Should have been better.

  • 53 months ago
  • 2 points

It's also not built on last year's Silicon. The 980ti is a detuned chip. we KNOW it can do better, because the Titan X is better. That seems to be missed in all of the reviews. For a fair comparison, you really need to look at the TitanX and the Fury. Both are the flagship cards of their chipset. At 4k they're in the same ballpark, but on lower resolutions the Titan X is a clear winner. And they still don't cross 60FPS at 4k. 30FPS is playable. On a laptop. For a full rig, it's 60 or bust.

  • 46 months ago
  • 1 point

That's the reason I went for the Devil 13 390 X2. It should be on par with those if not better and getting it for $100 cheaper is a good deal in my book.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 8 points

Fury X is a great card and a great value. Hype needs to try and atleast stay rational.

  • 54 months ago
  • 3 points

exactly.... +1 , if something is bad from AMD people attack it for being bad, if its good then its " its not as good as it should have been"....

  • 54 months ago
  • 3 points

Yea people have this crazy idea that AMD should offer more performance for a cheaper price for all their products and it just doesn't make any sense to me. The Nvidia kool-aid has been drank for to much.

  • 54 months ago
  • 3 points

The Fury X is a great card. If you're using QHD then there is nothing wrong with getting it, and if you're using UHD then you should absolutely be getting it.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

I haven't watched any videos yet, but I'm kinda surprised with some of the feedback on the reviews you linked here. Does this mean the Fury x2 is in par with the GTX 980? Someone do correct me or please better explain for my lack of knowledge about this Fury x2. I was interested of this card but I also like seeing some more numbers too if you know on what I mean. Not sure if anything is super accurate yet because its recently out but then again, I would like to better understand further about it.

I'll read and locate some more reviews, later today when I can.

  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

The Fury X2 is not out yet, it will be out in the fall of 2015. In theory, the X2 will have twice the amount of power as as the Fury X (which is out this week). The Fury X is on par with the Gtx 980 Ti in many charts, falling behind it by a couple of FPS in a few games. The price is the same for the Fury X and 980 Ti and the thermals will be closely matched. The biggest difference is the size of the card (Fury X is smaller than the 980 Ti), and the wattage it needs to function.

  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

thermals for the fury x are WAY better then the 980ti

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

The Fury has a max temp of 55 when gaming compared to 83 on the 980ti.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Don't forget though that a big reason for the temperature difference is because the Fury X is liquid cooled and the 980 Ti is air cooled. But yea with stock coolers it looks like the Fury X runs at much lower temps.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh darn... I'm sorry! My mind has been not quite focus lately, again. Thank you for your patience and explaining it better. I should have re-read this a few more times. And I should drink a bigger cup of coffee the next time I wake up. Thank you xolot! Much appreciate your time of stating about the Fury X.

I got the Fury X2 mixed up and misunderstood it, my apology. I do think it's nice to see a compact and liquid cooling GPU. Of course this is just a general idea and reading three articles, so I have more to read on. And yes it appears to be in between some other things, except as you mention before about the FPS being on par with the GTX 980 ti which is nice! I also saw someone's article showing the Fury X is 56° C when in under load (with games)! Interesting so far.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

huh, interesting comparison. i never thought of it that way...

personally, as disappointing as the actual performance was, let's put it this way: the card is about as short as if not shorter than a GTX 960, with an AIO cooler standard that manages temperatures very well, an improved power management system that makes it consume less power, and a memory bus that's eight times wider than any other GPU before it. the way i see it, Fury X is a great (if underwhelming) competitor to Nvidia's top 900 series cards and the Titan X.

now if only AMD would allow non-reference coolers to go with it...

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Fury X is great bang for you buck especially when compared to Nvidia. 980ti performance with smaller form factor and much better thermal temps...sign me up.

  • 53 months ago
  • 1 point

The card is smaller. The cooler is not. If you have room for the waterblock, then you probably have room for a full PCB.

  • 54 months ago
  • -1 points

Why is it that for anything convincing to come from AMD it seems they have to rig 2 processors together -_-

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

BF4 is optimized for AMD cards, and the Fury X runs it worse than any of the other games benchmarked. This is just another attempt at excusing AMDs let down of a card.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 54 months ago
  • 2 points

just a mistake..... don't understand why it has to be a VS always.. why not say all the good things the fury brings...

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube