Slashdot Mirror
Air-Cooled AMD Radeon R9 Fury Arrives For $100 Less With Fury X-Like Performance
MojoKid writes: When AMD launched the liquid-cooled Radeon Fury X, it was obvious the was company willing to commit to new architecture and bleeding edge technologies (Fiji and High-Bandwidth Memory, respectively). However, it fell shy of the mark that enthusiasts hoped it would achieve, unable to quite deliver a definitive victory against NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti. However, AMD just launched their Radeon R9 Fury (no "X" and sometimes referred to as "Fury Air"), a graphics card that brings a more compelling value proposition to the table. It's the Fury release that should give AMD a competitive edge against NVIDIA in the $500+ graphics card bracket. AMD's Radeon R9 Fury's basic specs are mostly identical to the liquid-cooled flagship Fury X, except for two important distinctions. There's a 50MHz reduction in GPU clock speed to 1000MHz, and 512 fewer stream processors for a total of 3584, versus what Fury X has on board. Here's the interesting news which the benchmark results demonstrate: In price the Fury veers closer to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, but in performance it sneaks in awfully close to the GTX 980 Ti.
Depends on the resolution. 1440p and even 4k monitors are becoming more common and you need the extra power. It will be interesting to see how Dx12 will impact performance too.
..and just like Nvidia, still using .28nm process for the GPU, same as it has been since ~2010-2011... by "technology standards", this is and incredibly long period of time. I totally understand the issues with supply from TSMC, Samsung, etc, and that the products of "latest-and-greatest" in chip fabrication are supplying the smart phone and tablet industry as fast as they can.... But my point is that these days, every time I see either AMD or Nvidia releasing yet another hot and power-hungry rehash, I sadly shake my head. Gigs and gigs of RAM are great - so is 1440p and 60 fps, but I want lower-power consumption and I want less heat. I don't want increasingly complicated cooling solutions.
Perhaps for current-day games, but the proposed specifications for the commercial Oculus Rift are quite high (and that's just the "recommended" specs): https://www.oculus.com/en-us/b...
The high-end cards of today will be the mid-high range cards of next year, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more demanding VR games make full use of the available power.
Does it have good Linux drivers? I.e. that have the same performance, memory requirements etc. that the windows counterpart? Doesn't have to be free, only good.
No? Then I'm not interested...
Stefan Axelsson
As soon as you write a driver for it.
It's open source, after all. Nothing stopping you.
That's because manufacturers run into limits, especially around cost, since Moore's law has reached the end of the line. A transistor on 20nm or 14nm is more expensive than a transistor on 28nm.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I've got a 1440 and can quite easily have a shitty experience if I select the wrong settings (2x770GTX 4Gb).
Still, I'm happy as larry that the PC world has finally decided to leave 1080 panels behind. I was running higher res than 1080 for years, and then those pesky TV panels turned up everywhere and put us back years.
Who decided that we need photorealism in games, anyway?
The developers did, to make up for not really adding any new gameplay or content. They want to sell 'the next big thing' without really needing to do anything but reiterate the old stuff at higher rez.
The Fury is really only competitive at 4K resolution. At lower resolutions 1440p, 1080p, etc., it gets beat pretty bad in pretty much every game out there (save for a very small handful) by the 980 and 980 TI. Given that the majority of monitors out there are still 1080p or 1440p it is hard to recommend this card.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Comment is too short.