KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Advanced Micro Devices on Wednesday officially launched its new flagship graphics processing unit as well as a card based on the GPU. The new graphics processor is the first chip in the world to use all-new high-bandwidth memory (HBM), which is a high-profile innovation on its own, to boot, AMD has managed to put together its fastest GPU yet.
Specifications the Radeon R9 Fury X have been known for a while. The code-named “Fiji” graphics processing unit integrates 4096 stream processors, 256 texture mapping units, 64 raster operations pipelines as well as an all-new memory controller with 4096-bit interface. The new GPU is reportedly based on the GCN 1.2 architecture and supports DirectX 12 (feature_level_11_1), OpenGL 4.5, OpenCL 2.1 and Vulkan application programming interface.
AMD’s “Fiji XT” chip integrates 8.9 billion of transistor and is the most complex graphics processing unit made to date. Peak compute performance of the GPU is 8.6TFLOPS, the highest FP32 rate ever demonstrated by a GPU.
All AMD Radeon R9 Fury and Fury X graphics cards carry 4GB of HBM memory, which operates at 1GHz frequency. While HBM memory on the new flagship graphics cards from AMD has peak bandwidth of 512GB/s, the limited amount of onboard memory has potential to limit gaming at high-resolutions, although we have not yet performed our own tests.
The “Fiji” chip is made using a 28nm process technology at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Since 4096-bit memory interface is extremely complex, AMD has to use a special interposer (a complex pad made using 65nm process technology at United Microelectronics Corp.) to connect memory to the GPU. The HBM memory is produced by SK Hynix. The final assembly of the chip is performed by Amkor Technologies in South Korea.
Due to extreme complexity of AMD “Fiji” graphics processing unit, innovative DRAM and rather expensive packaging and assembly, AMD Radeon Fury X is very expensive to manufacture.
The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X is available now starting at $649 in the U.S. and £509 in the U.K. The less advanced AMD Radeon R9 Fury will hit the market next month and will cost $549. Later this year AMD will also release small form-factor Radeon R9 Fury Nano graphics adapter that will cost less than $500.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: AMD has jumped back in to the high-end GPU market, bringing with it its fastest graphics core yet and HBM, which will play a huge role in high-end GPUs over the next few years. We don't have a review up just yet but we will be running some tests of our own shortly so keep an eye out.
650$, 510GBP, nice. With these prices, AMD gonna get bankrupt faster… Its slower than a 980Ti ffs, and they give it in the same price… Well played
I thought they were going to be competing. A sad day for enthusiasts as nVidia are going to turn into intel with restricted 5-10% gains each year, holding back the good stuff.
correction, its head to head with the 980 Ti, on stock, it has a lot more overclocking potential, and the drivers are not completly out
In the UK it’s £40 cheaper than the 980Ti, seems like a good deal
980ti overclocks better. wait for the custom pcb and ya’ll see
Check out hardcp review and even some other reviews, it does not go head to head on stock at all. Also minimum frame rate and frame delivery for 90% of games tested was worse, sometimes significantly.
the msi gtx980ti 6g has like a 20%+ performance boos and people have been ocing that even further to get around 35-40% over the base 980ti. It is actually insane, stays cool enough too
And we all know they have the good stuff. HBM2 and 16nm process being the most notable ones which combined would give graphics cards a huge boost in performance. Let’s just hope they don’t slow down simply “because they can” because I want to get my hands on a true 4k card
Guru3D’s review tried to overclock it, but the gains were so minimal it was pointless. I believe the excuse they gave — as they didn’t want to get denied review samples in the future — was “we will see better overclocking tools in the future.”
Speaking of cool, that’s the one area where the Fury X reigns: its operating temp at full load is 56°C. That’s everyone else’s idle temps. Not surprising, since it’s liquid-cooled.
Now…how on earth did I just KNOW that a GTX 980 Ti purchase was the right way to go? lel.
Keep in mind that while the 980ti and titan x can overclock by 30% or more on the stock cooler, reviewers were only able to get 4-10% max out of the fury x. In the legit reviews benchmark tests the overclocked fury x got obliterated by the only moderately overclocked 980ti.
Intel isn’t holding back the good stuff, CPU performance gains are just tapped out. They can neither increase clock rates much any more nor can they gain much by adding more cores. That’s why Intel is investing in the Xeon Phi architecture and probably partially why they bought Altera.
GPU performance gains, on the other hand, are still there to be realized. GPUs scale quite nicely with core count. NVIDIA also would not be inclined to hold anything back because they are competing with more than AMD with their architectures. They are competing in the SOC space, in the automotive space, and in HPC. They also want to have the performance necessary to drive high performance virtual reality, because that is a growth opportunity. Finally, Intel and AMD are the only two companies with access to an x86 license. If AMD is poor competition left, it leaves only Intel. If AMD doesn’t compete in graphics, sure NVIDIA has a monopoly for a short time in the desktop space, but there are other companies with access to the necessary IP to enter the space, and eventually someone will do so, if NVIDIA were to allow them an opening.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-5.html
Just get the graphene processors able to be made in place of sillicon…
currently graphene processors are really really expensive to make but are the next step in terms of clockspeed voltage and heat production/tolerance
And where exactly is the overclocking on the page you linked? I wasn’t discussing the actual performance of the Fury X vs. 980 Ti, but the performance of the Fury X stock vs the Fury X overclocked. Here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_review,37.html
You can see that there’s almost zero gain from OC’ing.
You know… you guys sit there and complain about a company becoming another intel, another monopoly. Just remember that if it does it will be because of those of us who refuse to take some responsibility in their buying choices. Nvidia has the lions share of the market, and can afford to come up with all manner of dirty tricks to convince their fans that they’re superior, even when they aren’t. When and if they do become a monopoly it will be because of those of you who let them. Because you had to go buy their card, yet again, because of a perceived marginal performance gain.
Then you’ll have your monopoly and there’ll be no one to blame other than those of you who refused to help the only competing company. So just know that if the time comes that Nvidia gets to do what they want since they’re the only game in town, it’ll be because of you, the “uncompromising”, amoral consumer. Fury X has HBM and barely was released; drivers are being worked on. AMD, under the circumstances, has come out with an excellent product that runs cooler, and beats 980 ti in many games already. The differences are negligible, but out of the two companies, AMD is the one that needs a hand up.
I’ve had cards from both companies in the past. I couldn’t care less about fanboyism. It’s hard to make the fiscally responsible choice, but if there is to be true competition in the future its up to us to make it so.
I looked at the draft which said $9958@mk11
ggg
http://www.GlobalworkworldDijital/weII/pay...
the Fury X is a reviewers sample and its not optimized for overclocking, also the drivers are still in beta, also this article says “I really wouldn’t know why you need to overclock today’s tested card anyway, but we’ll still show it.”
“Once the OC utilities start to support this card better, we’ll make a dedicated article on Fury X overclocking.”
so stop making ignorant remarks please, just wanting to find a bad point about something that is overall good, for the sake of giving it a bad reputation while it does deserve praise.
oh waw, what a fair comparison!!!
add 200$ more to buy a custom cooling solution, while the counter part has all that and more with less price, smart people
Yes man, you nailed it.
There’s no guarantee graphene will even be viable. It’s not a semiconductor, they have to try to add a band gap or figure out some other way of getting things work.
Can’t tell if being sarcastic…or just foreign…
And that’s always the excuse: “once the drivers get better.” Lemme ask you, has AMD ever released an underperforming product that got significantly better with driver updates? Funny how when Nvidia comes out with a card, nobody gives that excuse. Even with review samples.
I didn’t come out bashing the Fury X. In fact, my position on it has been, “it’s good enough, runs cold as ice, provides direct competition to the 980 Ti, but it is not the new top dog.” I’m just correcting your statement about the Fury X’s overclocking potential. Because as it stands, it just isn’t there yet.
they say the reviewer samples are capped and that seem to be logical, because it has some problems with the pump.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/24/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_video_card_review/9#.VY0VIUbwMtE
you mean this?
sarcastic of course, you can’t compare a stock card or a reviewers sample with a card that has been out for a few months
Except when the 980ti hasn’t been out for months, and didn’t even have a Windows 10 driver until last week, and all the test samples OC’d from the start, just like all other Nvidia cards, because reviewer sample cards are actually binned (higher quality than store shelf models) for maximum testing performance, and calling a water cooled fury x a stock card is also lulz. Even with a water cooled design it couldn’t keep up. Hell, even an overclocked GTX 980 beats it in performance. But keep coming up with excuses. 🙂
p.s. Guaranteed foreigner.
well we will have to see after a few months, if AMD doesn’t make it better, then you are right, and they deserve every criticism
I’ve been reporting for over a month that this card will not overclock. The reason? All in one cooler design as “standard.” As with their previous gen cards, AMD has trouble with power efficiency and therefore heat. Even with the 20-30w reduction in power use from using HBM memory, the card still uses 60w more at stock compared to the 980ti (which, also, is producing more frames with that lower power usage).
With the minimal Overclock it can do, it’s already pushing close to 400W and hitting 65c during gaming sessions. The cooler design won’t be able to handle much more heat. It’ll also only do marginally better (10-15% on the GPU clock) under a custom block/loop, while the 980ti can essentially hit a 50% OC boost in a similar situation.
Card is better than last gen. But it’s still a bust for this price point. You get more value from Nvidia at this point.
As I said at 4k as long as settings don’t go above 4GB VRAM it is close. At 1080p and 1440p it is quite far apart and if you go over 4GB VRAM at 4k the card drops massively behind. Not to mention min frame rate and frame times. I just tried GTAV on my MSI GTX980TI 6G yesterday and I get 52-65 fps on gtav 4k, everything maxed except grass which is on normal uses 4.5GB VRAM. If you want to be funny go look up a fury x doing those settings, oh wait there are no reviews doing it because it goes above 4GB VRAM and therefor cripples the card.
yeah as it seems, the fury is not the big win for AMD, I was hoping the card would perform better but much disappointment, altough pros for design, but overall if you want a performance beast with much capabilities 980 ti is way to go, but i would personally test out the fury X if i decide on building a system, its worth a try.
Please become president of the USA, we could use your economics over here.
I love AMD but man you got to stop with the excuses, it’s a little sad.