AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Card Review

Jump To:

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Overclocking

How well does the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X graphics card overclock? We were wondering the same thing and fired up AMD Catalyst Control Center to find out!

furyx overdrive

AMD allows you to overlock the Radeon R9 Fury X video card with AMD OverDrive like normal, but you can only adjust the GPU clock settings as memory overclocking has been locked down. From what we gather AMD feels that High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) is still too new and didn’t want consumers overclocking it just yet. We have a feeling that down the road AMD will again allow memory overclocking, but it obviously won’t be happening right out of the gate. AMD is aware of the desire to overclock and has issued statements like this with regards to overclocking the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X video card.

“We understand that enthusiast customers are always eager to squeeze the full potential out of their graphics card by overclocking. Typically electrical and thermal limitations impede the potential overclocks of a graphics card. The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X has been designed with this in mind to minimize electrical and thermal limitations as barriers to enable those customers who want overclock their graphics card at their own discretion.” – AMD

gpuz-furyx-stock

In case you forgot, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X reference card comes clocked at 1050MHz on the core and 500MHz on the 4GB of SKHynix HBM1. Let’s see how much higher we can get those 4096 stream processors!

gaming-temp2

AMD informed us that a good overclock would be 100MHz, so hitting 1150MHz on the core clock was our goal. Unfortunately our particular card does not appear to be an overclocking friendly model for some reason and we topped out at 1130MHz with a 7.6% GPU clock setting in AMD OverDrive. We played around with the power limit setting, but it made no difference in performance by increasing it to 10% in a couple game titles we spot checked, so we just left it at zero. Every card clocks differently and overclocking performance is not guaranteed, so we will just have to work with what we got!

fc4-overclocked

 

dx-error

dx-error2

If we pushed the overclock just 0.1% more we encountered many in-game issues and all sorts of DirectX errors stating that the device had been removed from the system, which it had not.

gpuz-furyx-oc

This overclock meant that we were running at 1130 MHz at load and thanks to the water cooler we topped out at 55C when gaming with this overclock and the core clock stayed pegged at 1130MHz even after a several hour long gaming marathon.

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Stock:

3dmark fury x

AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Overclocked (+80MHz Core):

furyx-oc2

By overclocking the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB reference card we were able to take the score of 7197 on 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme and raise it up to 7591. This is a 394 point increase in our overall 3DMark score, which represents a performance gain of 5.5 percent. The overal FPS average in Graphics Test 1 went from 38.08 to 40.34 FPS, which is a 5.9% performance gain in the graphics test. Not huge performance gains, but we’ll take a free 6% performance gain any day of the week.

We benchmarked the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB video card at stock speeds and then overclocked to +80MHz core for the entirety for this review so you can see how the card performs both with stock clock speeds.

Print
Jump To:
  • Freedom Miner

    Maybe its the particular setup used to test, or maybe something else. These benchmarks conflict with others. The bencchmarks at Tom’s Hardware, for example, shows the Fury X at parity with the Titan X. Consider, too, that AMD’s budget is far lower than nVidia’s. Give AMD time to work on drivers, and allow some time for some non-reference Fury x’s to be released, and the potential to beat the Tiatan x and 980ti with substantial numbers will reveal itself. Allow for DX 12 to enter the picture, (not 12.1, which nVidia seems to be hoping will be chosen as the main DX version used in the future, probably by paying to make it so regardless the cost) and all DX 12 AMD compatible products will likely show a far better picture that we’ve seen with their cards using DX11.

    AMD needs is to gain enough market share to give them a chance to further innovate via drivers and future design, and at long last we’ll have a healthier gpu market with competition which will benefit the consumer. If nVidia becomes a monopoly, we’ll have no one but ourselves to blame. IF we find ourselves with a one brand gpu market in the near future, it’ll be because of those among us who were uncompromising and bought yet another green team card based mostly on marginal gains due to the larger company’s hype and underhanded strategies and tactics which its known for. I rather doubt any enthusiast will be happy if that time ever comes.

  • Ed Starkey

    Why are there no OpenCL or compute test performed in this review? Every single site that has reviewed this card has omitted OpenCL and compute test. Is it because the compute performance is as bland as the gaming performance, or perhaps it’s even worse!

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Ed, what OpenCL or compute test would you like to see? If it’s free or something we already have, we can most certainly run it for you and post up the results here in the comment section or add it to the review.

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Ed, what OpenCL or compute test would you like to see? If it’s free or something we already have, we can most certainly run it for you and post up the results here in the comment section or add it to the review.

      • Nwgat

        perhaps LuxMark?

  • Rene Stanneveld

    Damn funny, there is no way a 120 rad can dissipate 500 wats.
    Thats what a 3×120 from a good brand does.

    • Nwgat

      fury is 275W, 500W is the rated cooling power of the water unit

  • Hooligan1976

    This clearly shows the 980Ti as a massive winner. We have to take into account that most 980Ti cards come factory overclocked with warranty. Some cards easily at 1250Mhz out of the box. We see that an 980Ti OC spanks the Fury X OC’ed card by a vast margin, on air cooling.

    HBM seems to make zero difference. Furthermore the 980Ti is even better in 1440p.
    Reality check neither 980Ti/Titan X or Fury X are true 4K cards, in many games they barely push 30fps. These cards are 1440p cards, that is a fact. In that category 980Ti run circles around the Fury X which oddly perform even WORSE.

  • linuxnutcase

    first off thanks for the legit review, nicely done, in my view you guys do the best in reviews, be great if you could get into youtube.
    I’m hoping that 120 rad will give us in the future tons of overclocking room, to bring the fps up.
    Either way amd did do a very good job on looks this time around.

  • Beelzy

    Your going to hafta wait for AMDs driver updates to get good performance out of any game that isnt already optimized for the 4GB of HBM or see your performance bottlenecked badly ohhh and 8gbs on the 390x/390 an only 4 gb here is just plain goofy especially with plenty of benchmarks showing games hittin almost 8gb usage its hardly gunna be futureproof. i would hafta find room for that quite large watercooler??i have a big enuff case now LOL no ty itd be apain too install and would force significant tradeoffs in my cases layout for airflow/fans setup.Been a huge AMD fan for years and it is nice to them get very competitive again…but titan/980ti killer this sure as hell isnt it……imagine nvidias next card in 6mnths with a die shrink and hbm2…….lolz

  • Etienne Boutet boucher

    Really deceiving, i was expecting alot more with all this hype around fury…

  • agentbb007

    Well definitely not the 980ti killer rumored but at least AMD is in the ball park now.

    • nem

      i disagree, still Fury can perform with better drivers meanwhile the TI is full performing with already good drivers , and too here let you this..¬¬

      http://i.imgur.com/vmvUAfX.png

      http://i.imgur.com/kKLCcAr.png

      • nobodyspecial

        1. Devs support the largest userbase period. They will support DX features of NV before AMD as the share is 75% to 25%.

        2. NV can wring more out of their card too as Extremetech says Metro LL up to 25% faster with 353.30 vs. 352.90:
        http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/208874-amds-radeon-fury-x-previewing-performance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/3
        They will keep doing it as Maxwell 2 is a new gen too. TitanX and 980ti just came out…LOL. Keep living the fantasy.

        3. DX12 features are coughed up by Microsoft NOT Nvidia or AMD and these are MISSING from AMD:
        Feature Level 12_1 has Raster Order Views, Conservative Raster and Volume Tiled Raster enabled on the API. They won’t just NOT matter because 25% market share wishes it to be so.

        4. Driver overhead means almost nothing in reality and you left out the fact that there are ZERO Dx12 games and won’t be for a while so you’ll be dealing with DX11 driver overhead which shows the EXACT opposite:
        http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/reviews/hardware/vgacards/35798-reviewed-amd-r9-fury-x-4gb.html?start=21
        LOL – in singlethread and multithreaded. Even if Win10 massively takes over (doubtful with many happy win7/8 users and even more missing dx12 support on their current cards anyway), games won’t massively go there until the hardware numbers are there. You don’t write games for people who don’t massively exist yet.

        http://www.anandtech.com/show/9223/gfxbench-3-metal-ios
        WOW, driver overhead 3-4x faster on METAL on apple devices vs. OpenGL ES. So games will magically be 3-4x faster now…But in reality…It generates 10% in Manhattan/TrexHD…ROFL. How much does 33% end up being when apples is 300-400% faster on the same devices and only ends up 10% at the end of the day in a game situation? It’s kind of like saying WOW, HBM1 is bandwidth is massive and AMD now kicks butt in all things. But then bandwidth really isn’t the issue today so NV still wins everywhere…ROFL.

        No review site says buy FuryX over 980ti especially for 95% of us which run 1440p or less and no matter what when considering OCing (even 4k stupid then for FuryX). Futuremark even says don’t use their tool as a benchmark for this. Driver overhead is the WORST case scenario that COULD happen if a dev decided to throw as many draw calls as possible at the screen in a game, and ZERO games do it, and even star swarm is NOT a game and never will be. Draw calls/driver overhead is a small part of a game. As the metal tests show, even a 400% improvement nets 10% today. AMD’s cards won’t magically speed up massively in gaming when win10 hits. Heck they still have to put out a WHQL driver (not one since Dec8 2014!) while NV already has one for win10.

        See pcper, techreport, maximumpc, hardocp, hothardware, hexus, hardwarecanucks, techpowerup, etc etc. The best you get is not a bad buy if you’re an AMD 290 owner 😉 Not that it’s a bad card, just that it isn’t as good as 980ti. Checking those also gets you a larger bunch of games to judge and see how often 4K even goes NV (more often then not and many times by >20%). You need to be beating the competition not your old gen.

    • Nwgat

      its more like a ninja “small, cool, quiet and sneaks up on you”
      meybe fury had a mad mood? tomorrow it will be 1% faster than 980ti?
      3% is within of the margin of error

      Fury is around 3% slower yet its water cooled, almost half the size of 980ti…

  • tacoslave

    I was actually expecting it to be slower than 3% average compared to the 980ti not bad,plus its already watercooled, shame about the over clocking though.