Slashdot Mirror
AMD Reveals Radeon R9 Fury X Specs and Preliminary Benchmark Performance Results
MojoKid writes: AMD announced new Radeon R9 and R7 300 series of graphics cards earlier this week, and while they are interesting, they're not nearly as impressive as AMD's upcoming flagship of AMD GPU, code named Fiji. Fiji will find its way into three products this summer: the Radeon R9 Nano, Radeon R9 Fury, and the range-topping (and water-cooled) Radeon R9 Fury X. Other upcoming variants like, AMD's dual-Fiji board, were teased at E3 but are still under wraps. However, while full reviews are still under embargo, the official specification of the Radeon R9 Fury X have been revealed, along with an array of benchmark scores comparing the GPU to NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti. Should the numbers AMD has released jibe with independent testing, the Radeon R9 Fury X looks strong and possibly faster than Nvidia's GeForce GTX 980 Ti.
I can't even read the end of the friggen titles, come on slahsdot, get those STUPID icons out of the way of the titles of the articles
Former ATI (and then AMD) engineer here... Now work at NVIDIA. My take is that, generally speaking, the quality of the chips from either company are pretty much on par. I'm not talking performance, that's a separate issue. I'm talking the quality of work that went into design, implementation, manufacturing. Neither company's chips/boards is going to be any more reliable than the other, on the whole. Similar MTBF and whatnot, and as these are consumer parts, there will necessarily be folks who unfortunately get a bad part or two. It's just probability.
here's why it was pulled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The video was released before any official info about fiji was released, so it was full of speculation, had inaccuracies on topics that were already publicly known, and called AMD a bunch of cons for using previous gen cards in the non top end, non-fiji part of their lineup.
It goes beyond the synthetics though. I've seen some benchmarks where they choose an odd set of game video quality settings, such as cranking everything to the max, but disabling MSAA (so that the "mid range cards get a chance to shine" is the excuse), and then showing that the game gets 49FPS on the AMD 390X card, but 58FPS or so on the Nvidia GTX 980, and claiming the "390X can't compete". Of course, the clueless readers are "wtf, amd fail!!11!", ignoring the fact that the 980 is like $150CAD more expensive to get that extra 9FPS.
I saw the same benchmark at another site where they enabled 2x MSAA for that game, with the rest of the specs at "very high", and lo-and-behold, the AMD card was running the game at 85 FPS and the same Nvidia card was now at about 88FPS. $150 premium doesn't seem so cost effect now, does it? Do Nvidia cards take a big performance hit on MSAA? Is that why it was disabled on one site's tests?
Nearly every time I see AMD reviews, the products get compared to competitor's offerings that are clearly in a different price range, or serve a different audience.
It's hard to believe the reviewers are that ignorant, so it really seems like some sites are out to harm AMD. I wouldn't put it past Intel to be behind this. They're the reason you only see maybe one AMD notebook in any store, surrounded by 20+ Intel powered notebooks.