I need help picking between Fury X and 980 TI

S

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
This is the right section right mods? Sorry If I got it wrong.

Background
So I play at 1200P and 4k and may buy a 1440P screen if I need a middle res for games (mostly newer games). All my gaming is at 60 hz currently since I own several 1200P IPS and a 4K Dell IPS screen.

Also SLI/xfire is not an option. I also plan on buying a new GPU once the die shrink comes in a year.

I have a 770 GTX currently

Noise is also not an issue to me. It is nice to be quite but not needed.

Also I DO NOT CARE about Fury X being 4GB VRAM. It is an irrelevant issue as proven by Techpowerups review of VRAM usage and I'll only have this card for a year so VRAM is not a factor in decision

Also power consumption is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to me

So please lets not troll pointless "issues"

Main Section
I have read several reviews and I know Fury X and 980 TI are about the same at 4K and Fury X currently is slow at lower res due to several reasons, which may or may not ever get fixed.

Now here is where I am having trouble:
1.) Many games I play are not in reviews so I have no clue which is better. Many of these are older but I want to play them at 4K and I am unsure how they will pan out.
Total War Games* A big deal for me
Natural Selection 2
Saint Row 3/4* A big deal for me
Max Payne 3*
King Arthur the role playing game (like Total War)*
Company of Heroes 2* A big deal for me
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit*
Ark* (dino survival game that is in development)
Battlefront*

All of these I'll be playing at 4K assuming the cards are fast enough. Only some of the titles I am concerned about. I would assume both cards can all all of those at 4K right?

There are newer games but those have reviews for the most part. So yea to simplify ones with * are ones I am concerned over. (I removed a few since they were older than I thought lol so mostly the * exist)

Battlefront is one of the games I am looking forward to but isn't AMD usually golden at those games?

Lastly, since I am currently limited to 60 hz does any of this section matter unless I get a higher hz screen? (Granted Total War is the exception 4k on that is ridiculous in how much power it needs)

1a.) I am someone who OCs if its possible so consider that factor when giving advise. I plan on do some marginal OC. I like EVGA cards but the 980 TI Gigabyte card has a custom PCB and seems like a really good OCer.

2.) As a secondary purpose but not a primary decision factor. I am looking to use the cards for F@H and brute forcing some TC files. The question here is "Do these only use single precision or do they use double precision? I believe they use SP and not DP but I wanted to double check with everyone here.

3.) I also do some Photoshop on my 4K screen and I am unsure if either card makes a difference. I assume they both are so OP that it is irrelevant but please correct me if I am wrong.

4.) This is probably the most important two questions I have:
Oculus VR or any other brand. Does it matter at the moment? Or is this a next year issue when I upgrade again? I haven't had a chance to research those things yet.

Are there any 4K IPS monitors coming out that support flicker for AMD? I haven't found anything exact yet on if there is a monitor or if freesync supports flicker blur reduction. If there is nothing out or coming out in the next year for AMD GPUs then that's a major negative.

Wrap-up
I am leaning towards the 980 TI at the moment from my understanding but a few things I needed to double check and a few play a rule with swaying me one way or the other.

If AMD is a bad choice for VR (assuming those are viable before year end. Moot point if they don't exist yet) or no flicker blur reduction monitor in the near future. 980 TI wins for sure

If the 980 TI is an utter failure at brute forcing TC files or F@H. Fury X wins.

If they both are good options for me Fury X wins for the sole fact of giving competition business and it including full features.

I wanted to give my business to AMD but it is what it is if the 980 TI is better for my needs. Sorry if this is wordy but I wanted to try to give you guys the best view of my needs.

Thanks for all the help!!!!
 
Considering they cost the same, the 980Ti is the better card. It's faster, runs cooler, less power and overclocks better. As long as the Fury X costs the same as the 980Ti, there's not much of a reason to buy one cause the Ti pretty much outdoes it on every category.
 
doesn't answer the SP/DP question and how it plays those other games. Does anyone know of a Total War review that is reliable? What about the VR?
 
Unless youre going for a SFF case then just go 980Ti.
Fury X would be a great card at 550-600 but right now its just not worth its cost versus the Ti.
It does perform very well at 4K according to some reviews I have seen but I would still lean towards Ti.
 
Opening up with "I want your advice, BUT DON'T GIVE ME THE ADVICE I DON'T WANT TO HEAR" proves you don't actually want opinions, you want an echo chamber.

If you actually believe that 4GB isn't a limitation at 4k there's nothing more anyone else can tell you; HardOCP themselves have proven 4GB is a limitation, and you're posting on their forums asking advice from their uses while disregarding their findings... You've already convinced yourself that this product could meet your needs when it can't, and there's nothing anyone will be able to say that will show you you're incorrect.

With your statements regarding 4GB VRAM you have already proven you're incapable of taking objective advice, so what's the point of wasting keystrokes on you?
 
980ti for all the obvious reasons.

A 980 beats a 290x at F@H. I don't foresee why a 980ti wouldn't beat a Fury X since they are basically scaled up cards.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

Most of the games you linked aren't performance drivers to my knowledge. Both AMD and nVidia have fine single card driver support. I don't see that as much of a discriminator for single cards. Ark and Battlefront should run similarly on either card.

According to the Eurogamer review the 980ti is % faster OC vs. OC:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
 
SomeGuy133 said:
doesn't answer the SP/DP question and how it plays those other games. Does anyone know of a Total War review that is reliable? What about the VR?
Click to expand...

Not sure what SP/DP is. I do know that aside from Far Cry 4, Shadows of Mordor and Tomb Raider, every benchmark I can find shows the 980 Ti beating the Fury. I guess its possible that Total War is the one game that the Fury X beats the 980 Ti by 30% in but since the Ti walks away with it in 95% of the game benchmarks out there, Im gonna have to believe thats not likely.

Couple that with less heat, noise, better overclocking and more VRAM all for the same money and I cant find a reason to buy a Fury X. And Im a pretty big AMD fanboy!
 
980ti /end thread

the fury x just doesn't keep up in games @4k
 
If Total War is a big deal for you then your CPU will be a bigger bottleneck then your GPU(s). The TW games suffer from the drawcall performance penalties, so until DX12/Vulkan versions come out you are probably CPU restrained. That being said I can say my 280x CF cards scale almost 100% in the games when not bottlenecked. AMD and Intel have well optimized the TW series overall.

ARK is going to be a Gameworks title, so expect a feature lockout and/or hampered development for AMD there.

The rest should play fine, Battlefront performance maybe tipped in AMD's favor.

AMD is investing heavily into VR with Oculus and have many planned titles coming in the new year.

I see it as a draw for the video cards short term, CPU is more worth looking into. VR I'm seeing AMD in front there.
 
At 4k I like to think you'd like to keep the option open to add another card later. I don't know if this has been touched on in reviews, but can't see there being an option to crossfire fury x's with that cooler that takes up a fan slot. With the 980ti on the other hand, just throw in another card and call it a day. Regardless of multi-gpu situations, you stated you like to overclock. As it currently stands, OCing a fury x is futile with current software/drivers. This may change in the future but if it were me buying a card right now I'd be in for a 980ti no questions.
 
d50man said:
980ti /end thread

the fury x just doesn't keep up in games @4k
Click to expand...

You know now that I look at other review site's 4K results, the Fury X aint so bad after all. [H]'s brutal review aside, other sites show it hanging in there pretty good at 4K. In fact, [H] is the only site I can find trashing it. :confused:

Tom's for example has the Fury X beating or neck and neck with the 980 Ti in its benchmarks. Guru3D does as well. Same for TechPowerUp. The Fury X is beating the 980 Ti in more games than its loses in.

I dont play 4K and dont ever plan to so I never pay attention to those benchmarks but now that I have, Im a little surprised. The 980 Ti is definitely faster in the lower resolutions but 4K, theyre basically neck and neck. Still, Id opt for the 980 Ti though for the same money. If you want to wait and see if the Fury drops into the $500 range then it would be worth the investment.
 
Last edited:
Opening post = manifesto so I'm not going to bother but based on the title I'm going to assume this is either a joke thread or OP's been living in a cave and hasn't read any reviews.

980Ti > Fury X in every metric, and that's before overclocking.

980Ti base clock 1000MHz and people running it at 1500MHz on air is not uncommon. Can you say H E A D R O O M?

Fury X as of this moment has no overclocking, AMD seemingly afraid to unlock voltage, very possibly because they already maxed out the GPU and the architecture from the factory just to be able to keep up. Perhaps not uncoincidentally, XFX took the step of removing their usual "lifetime warranty" for this particular card, perhaps as a hedge in case voltage does get unlocked and VRM's start fryng or PCIe slots start melting. All these things don't paint a rosy picture for OC prospects.
 
Last edited:
SomeGuy133 said:
Also I DO NOT CARE about Fury X being 4GB VRAM

All of these I'll be playing at 4K
Click to expand...


GTX 980 Ti, even if it had 4GB also.

But...

I have 980s and I feel the 4GB limitation. Until you game on 4K for yourself, don't put blind faith into a review site or user comments.
 
Buying FuryX @ the current price point over 980Ti is purely fanboy and hates NV. There is NO reason to purchase FuryX at its current pricing, especially when there are reference 980Ti being sold $20 cheaper than the FuryX.
 
AMD gpus suffer badly in latest Total War due to driver overhead

tw_high_1920.png


Also good luck with that I don't need more than 4GB for 4k gaming ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3b96yw/fury_x_stuttering_in_gta_v_4k/
 
Well the whole 4GB thing might have some credibility since this is HBM and not your standard DDR5. Judging by the benchmarks, it looks to be working pretty well as its keeping up with and beating the 980 Ti's 6GB at 4K despite having a slower GPU as evidenced by the Ti running away with it at the lower resolutions.
 
MacLeod said:
Considering they cost the same, the 980Ti is the better card. It's faster, runs cooler, less power and overclocks better. As long as the Fury X costs the same as the 980Ti, there's not much of a reason to buy one cause the Ti pretty much outdoes it on every category.
Click to expand...

You are funny LOL.
 
Dayaks said:
He's right if you consider delta to max. I wouldn't run an AIO any hotter and the VRMs are reported over 100C on the Fury X.
Click to expand...

yep. Fury X GPU at 60C doesn't mean much when the VRMs are being beat to shit at 100C+ and you've got 90C at the PCIe connector.
 
As someone that has owned AMD cards for the past 4 generations or so, I see no reason to get a Fury X right now. It only makes sense if you game at 4K AND you plan on going with water cooling regardless ($100 savings in that case)

Otherwise, I'd get the 980 Ti. You can cherry pick some outliers, but the vast majority of benchmarks have the 980 Ti coming out clearly ahead. Not to mention it OCs around 15-20% more than the Fury (could change once voltage tools are released, though).

But with the data available now the card to get is a 980 Ti, no question. Maybe AMD will improve drivers in a big way, maybe the voltage tools will unlock way more OC potential, but that is all "what ifs" for now.
 
Bowman15 said:
Yeah, under extreme stress testing. Way to pick and choose.
Click to expand...

If I want something to last it should be able to handle anything thrown at it.

Two different sites show extreme temps. Let's ignore those - 60C on a water system is still the max you'd want to take an AIO unless you like leaks. It jives with the AIBs reducing warranties. Those temps is also assuming you have the same ambient as the testing conditions which many likely won't.

The point is if you have huge balls what do you take it up to? 65? 70? On the flip side air coolers usually have 20-30C delta they can bite into.

I personally have more hope for the air cooled Fury.
 
Dayaks said:
He's right if you consider delta to max. I wouldn't run an AIO any hotter and the VRMs are reported over 100C on the Fury X.
Click to expand...

Delta to max is irreverent the temp its running is the temp its ruining at and 50-60 under load is what it is and a cool running card is defined by its GPU temp and not its VRM temp which has had parts taken off and furmark is stupid which is like running my car non stop in first gear flat out.
 
Final8ty said:
Delta to max is irreverent the temp its running is the temp its ruining at and 50-60 under load is what it is and a cool running card is defined by its GPU temp and not its VRM temp which has had parts taken off and furmark is stupid which is like running my car non stop in first gear flat out.
Click to expand...

Delta to max is totally relevant. It's what determines how well it'll OC.

Only one of the two sites showing high temps had the backplate off. But that's not even necessary for my point.

There's two main arguements people like to use:
- AMD will deliver better drivers!!
- AMD will unlock the voltage for OCing!!

My point is it's basically already maxed for temp (for an AIO) unless you want the AIO pissing all over your hardware. It's also why I think it's voltage locked. Obviously the AIBs are concerned because they lowered warranties.
 
Dayaks said:
Delta to max is totally relevant. It's what determines how well it'll OC.

Only one of the two sites showing high temps had the backplate off. But that's not even necessary for my point.

There's two main arguements people like to use:
- AMD will deliver better drivers!!
- AMD will unlock the voltage for OCing!!

My point is it's basically already maxed for temp (for an AIO) unless you want the AIO pissing all over your hardware. It's also why I think it's voltage locked. Obviously the AIBs are concerned because they lowered warranties.
Click to expand...

Still is not the point, a card is not classed as running hotter than another card just because it may not be able to operate at a higher temperature, 50-60c is less than 80c period and i have not seen a user go above 52c in gaming or benching yet.
 
Last edited:
Final8ty said:
Still is not the point, a card is not classed as running hotter than another card just because it may not be able to operate at a higher temperature, 50-60c is less than 80c period and i have not seen a user go above 52c in gaming or benching yet.
Click to expand...

It is technically cooler....

I suppose I have tunnel vision on overclocking.
 
Dayaks said:
980ti for all the obvious reasons.

A 980 beats a 290x at F@H. I don't foresee why a 980ti wouldn't beat a Fury X since they are basically scaled up cards.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/20

Most of the games you linked aren't performance drivers to my knowledge. Both AMD and nVidia have fine single card driver support. I don't see that as much of a discriminator for single cards. Ark and Battlefront should run similarly on either card.

According to the Eurogamer review the 980ti is % faster OC vs. OC:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-radeon-r9-fury-x-review

9% at 4k
22% at 1440p
31% at 1080p
Click to expand...

Cool thanks for the F@H info. Now I just need to find out this brute forcing info. I think it is SP though and not DP.

MacLeod said:
Not sure what SP/DP is. I do know that aside from Far Cry 4, Shadows of Mordor and Tomb Raider, every benchmark I can find shows the 980 Ti beating the Fury. I guess its possible that Total War is the one game that the Fury X beats the 980 Ti by 30% in but since the Ti walks away with it in 95% of the game benchmarks out there, Im gonna have to believe thats not likely.

Couple that with less heat, noise, better overclocking and more VRAM all for the same money and I cant find a reason to buy a Fury X. And Im a pretty big AMD fanboy!
Click to expand...

Where is the review that the Fury X wins by 30% in total war? Someone else below shows AMD is bad at it. Does it win at older ones but not the new engine used in Rome 2?

Yakk said:
If Total War is a big deal for you then your CPU will be a bigger bottleneck then your GPU(s). The TW games suffer from the drawcall performance penalties, so until DX12/Vulkan versions come out you are probably CPU restrained. That being said I can say my 280x CF cards scale almost 100% in the games when not bottlenecked. AMD and Intel have well optimized the TW series overall.

ARK is going to be a Gameworks title, so expect a feature lockout and/or hampered development for AMD there.

The rest should play fine, Battlefront performance maybe tipped in AMD's favor.

AMD is investing heavily into VR with Oculus and have many planned titles coming in the new year.

I see it as a draw for the video cards short term, CPU is more worth looking into. VR I'm seeing AMD in front there.
Click to expand...

Cool thanks I forgot about the stupid gameworks crap. Is the VR like summer 2016 or like Q4/Q1. Either one might really be irrelevant to me though given its so close to the near cards at that point. I wouldn't mind waiting 6 months on the VR for a new card.

mrrogers747 said:
At 4k I like to think you'd like to keep the option open to add another card later. I don't know if this has been touched on in reviews, but can't see there being an option to crossfire fury x's with that cooler that takes up a fan slot. With the 980ti on the other hand, just throw in another card and call it a day. Regardless of multi-gpu situations, you stated you like to overclock. As it currently stands, OCing a fury x is futile with current software/drivers. This may change in the future but if it were me buying a card right now I'd be in for a 980ti no questions.
Click to expand...

I have a 4770K right now and getting the 6700k at release. I won't have enough bandwidth in PCIe lanes. We are already getting clos to capping PCIe 3.0 as is. I am also getting an Intel 750 soon so I won't have a spare slot. IIRC 980 TI/Titan are bottlenecked in select cases at 8x but 4x is a disaster. It isn't worth while to do a 8x4x4. Granted 6700K has 20x but no one knows if the chipset will support x8 x8 x4 yet.

Michaelius said:
AMD gpus suffer badly in latest Total War due to driver overhead

tw_high_1920.png


Also good luck with that I don't need more than 4GB for 4k gaming ;)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3b96yw/fury_x_stuttering_in_gta_v_4k/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Total War benchmarks. Do you know any for the older ones like Empire/Shoguns 2? Empire is still a dog to run at 4K even for my 770 GTX and Shoguns 2 is even worse.

Also take a look at this: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/33.html
 
DPI said:
yep. Fury X GPU at 60C doesn't mean much when the VRMs are being beat to shit at 100C+ and you've got 90C at the PCIe connector.
Click to expand...

Wait, the waterblock doesn't cover the VRMs? That's like a newbie level mistake. *shakes head*
 
yacoub35 said:
Wait, the waterblock doesn't cover the VRMs? That's like a newbie level mistake. *shakes head*
Click to expand...

REMOVED post below shows vrm cooling, maybe it is inadequate or bad contact
 
Last edited:
The 8.6 teraflop number AMD touts is single-precision, if that means anything to you, and the Tech Report review shows this is true in the Beyond3D ALU test.
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

According to Hexus, there is no double-precision support on the Fiji die, and double-precision is processed at 1/16 (one-sixteenth) the speed of its single-precision performance.
(Found under "Raising the table stakes" section)
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/

It's still possibly faster than the 980 Ti in DP compute performance, as the Anandtech review of the 980 Ti shows poor FP64 performance in F@H when compared to Hawaii XT.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/15

But unless all you're going to be doing is crunching numbers, there is no reason to go with Fury X over 980 Ti at the same price point.
 
yacoub35 said:
Wait, the waterblock doesn't cover the VRMs? That's like a newbie level mistake. *shakes head*
Click to expand...

I saw the inside of the Fury X and there is a heatpipe that runs over the mosfets

fury-x-inside.jpg
 
Armenius said:
The 8.6 teraflop number AMD touts is single-precision, if that means anything to you, and the Tech Report review shows this is true in the Beyond3D ALU test.
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

According to Hexus, there is no double-precision support on the Fiji die, and double-precision is processed at 1/16 (one-sixteenth) the speed of its single-precision performance.
(Found under "Raising the table stakes" section)
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84170-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x/

It's still possibly faster than the 980 Ti in DP compute performance, as the Anandtech review of the 980 Ti shows poor FP64 performance in F@H when compared to Hawaii XT.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/15

But unless all you're going to be doing is crunching numbers, there is no reason to go with Fury X over 980 Ti at the same price point.
Click to expand...

thanks for that info
 
d50man said:
REMOVED post below shows vrm cooling, maybe it is inadequate or bad contact
Click to expand...

Its baloney.

kP76vY.jpg


100c VRMs, and the coolant, pipes and pump and the entire cooling system at 90-100c and the GPU at 60c, impossible, the coolant can not be hotter than the heat source, so let say the biggest heat source is the VRMs there is no way the VRMs could heat up the entire loop which has a 500w heat dissipation capacity to 90-100c.

And on top of that in the case of the GPU you can not transfer heat to something that is already hotter than itself so the coolant at 90-100c would be actively heating up the GPU so it would not be running at anywhere near 60c it would be over 130c.

Sorry but there testing is BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top