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.
A word of warning for everybody: Neither the new R9 3xx series GPUs nor the Fiji (Fury) parts support HDMI 2.0. That means that you will not be able to output 4k60 pictures to your brand new 4k TV. That's fairly silly for a graphics card that is advertised as making 4k gaming a reality.
They're not even embarrassed. They know their hardware is junk, and they're relying on the emperor's new clothes model to keep people excited about it.
Considering that AMD has long experience with anti-AMD shilling I can understand them not wanting it to be reviewed by them. After all, Tomshardware did the same thing going all the way as far as blaming AMD for the poor performance. That was until someone on their side let it slip that TH knew that the poor hardware performance was because intel allowed specific optimizations to benchmark codes. Thus their real world performance was flawed.
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
That was until someone on their side let it slip that TH knew that the poor hardware performance was because intel allowed specific optimizations to benchmark codes. Thus their real world performance was flawed.
The problem with this argument is that all the benchmarks are flawed for this reason. I never trust a synthetic benchmark to tell me how hardware is going to behave in the real world.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Give up 4:3 TV? Sure.
Give up 4:3/5:4 monitor? There's no reason if it still works.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Give up 4:3/5:4 monitor? There's no reason if it still works.
IMHO, 4:3 or 5:4 (which I'm using right now) is much better for most of the computing tasks I do -- see my cousin post on text line widths. I'd gladly get a new monitor with such dimensions (and a modern resolution, naturally).
For the inevitable comments on turning a widescreen monitor in a vertical orientation, please go and educate yourselves on subpixel font rendering. Of course, as videos don't use that, an ideal monitor might have their subpixels oriented in the long direction, so it could serve both purposes optimally.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
Every year Nvidia spends TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to what the PR industry calls REPUTATION MANAGERS. These are people who blitz the tech sites and their forums with anti-AMD FUD, and pro-Nvidia boosting.
That person on a forum who SWEARS he once owned AMD card after AMD acrd, and they all went wrong- forcing him to go Nvidia? A paid Nvidia shill. That person who obsesses about any omission in a new AMD product (see the HDMI FUD in this forum for instance) and swears it is an unforgivable and fatal flaw- a paid Nvidia shill.
Nvidia once made the high-end hot and power-hungry graphics cards, and Nvidia paid off every tech site to say that REAL PC gamers had massive cases filled full of fans that used the biggest PSU imaginable. Then Nvidia went to a higher performance per watt than AMD, and suddenly every tech was saying that how and power hungry graphics cards were the worst thing ever- and every REAL PC gamer wanted the smallest case with the tiniest PSU.
For years, only AMD implemented digital sound over the cables used to drive home cinema devices, and Nvidia paid off tech sites to say that REAL home cinema enthusiasts used separate amps driven from an independent audio output from the back of the PC.
Using two graphics cards together is an UTTER JOKE apparently every time AMD's solution is better than Nvidia, but the best thing since sliced-bread every time Nvidia's solution is better than AMD's.
Nvidia plays dirty- very, very, very dirty. And sometimes Nvidia has the better products as well (if you don't take price into account). For whatever reason ATI/AMD has never played this dirty propaganda game, and without doubt it has suffered horribly because of this. At the notorious Anandtech, for instance, the forums have 'moderators' who are actually also employees of Nvidia and Intel. The trolling of AMD on the graphics and CPU forums there is unprecedented as a result.
Fiji is a BETTER GPU than the Titan X (so-called Big Maxwell) and Nvidia knows this. But Fiji is a terribly expensive product for AMD, while the 980TI is a much cheaper build from Nvidia. On each Fiji card AMD makes a significant loss- while on each slower but similar priced 980TI card Nvidia makes an Apple like profit.
Both have chips of around the same size, but AMD has higher transistor density and lower yields. AMD's tech is much more advanced, which is why the anti-AMD fud is operating at 11 at this time.
Next year everything changes. Years late, Nvidia launches its first true DX12 architecture (AMD has been fully DX12 compatible since GCN first appeared with the 7870). Nvidia's PASCAL architecture is expected to crucify AMD (and sadly there is no reason to expect otherwise).
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.
And yet again you bring up the drivers despite the fact multiple people on multiple occasions have given you the correct drivers which work perfectly well on anything from Win 7-Windows 10.
Since your Google-Fu must sucketh yet again here it is and yet agaion here is the step by step on how to install..1.-Extract drivers to folder of your choice, 2.- Right click on video card in device manager, choose "update driver", 3.- Choose manual over having Windows hunt for a driver, 4.- Point Windows to folder where you dropped the driver.
That is it, that is literally all there is to it and I have a customer with one of those chips and it took me less than 5 minutes to get it up and running perfectly fine in Windows 7. If you don't want to actually do the four steps you can always download driver booster or driver magician and either program will do it for you, its REALLY not that hard.
The fact that you are STILL harping on, despite multiple people pointing you to the correct download AND walking you through the frankly noob friendly install? Yeah, starting to wonder if shill or fanboy would be an appropriate label here, especially since you seem to go out of your way to post this to every. single. AMD. article. whether it has anything to do with GPUs or not.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.