Fury X has joined the game
#1
Fury X @ 8.6 Tflops sub 275 watts 649 price... 549 for air cooled ver fury. Updated GCN architecture. Green team probably won't be holding the lead for much longer.
Reply
#2
Need wait to 24.06 to buy 1 pcs and test but like I see should be good. More good look Fury Nano that give 2x more power per wat then 290x and got only 6inch long.
Reply
#3
R9 Fury X is basically just 2x 7970 squeezed onto a single chip, so there is absolutely no way it's "sub-275W." I'm sure they make aggressive use of PowerTune to try to keep the power below 275W, but this is certainly a 400W+ card. Setting PowerTune set to +50% would raise the thermal limit to 412W, which seems much better aligned with reality. But then I doubt the cooling solution could keep up with it.

The R9 Fury is basically a 290X with 768 more cores, yet they claim it draws 15W less? AMD has found a way to defy physics! No, not really, they'll just throttle the shit out of it with PowerTune.
Reply
#4
Let's wait and see. It's definitly not two simple 7970 nailed together as the specs confirm. While GCN compute units and stream processors raise by 1.45 from Hawaii, the Render Output Units stay at 64. As I've already mentioned here, Graphic cards will be shorter from now on. That's revolutionary and has huge consequences on PCB design.

Still AMD driver will be sub-standard but as far as I can see 649 Dollar are more than fair for this card and I welcome the competition.
Reply
#5
No, the specs confirm that it IS 2x 7970 on a single chip.

7970: GCN, 2048 stream processors, 32 compute units, 4.3 billion transistors
Fury X: GCN, 4096 stream processors, 64 compute units, 8.9 billion transistors

It is LITERALLY a 7970 with double the cores.
Reply
#6
Well, DX support says otherwise.
The least it means is it will not be using the original, GCN 1.0 version of 7970's GPU.

EDIT: I may have to take that back, according to the image below.
[Image: 656x341xo4wOYxm.png.pagespeed.ic.6BBul3Zp0A.png]
Reply
#7
(06-17-2015, 12:45 AM)epixoip Wrote: No, the specs confirm that it IS 2x 7970 on a single chip.

7970: GCN, 2048 stream processors, 32 compute units, 4.3 billion transistors
Fury X: GCN, 4096 stream processors, 64 compute units, 8.9 billion transistors

It is LITERALLY a 7970 with double the cores.

Wait they said they will update the GCN as well. Maybe we get some new instructions. /me wants LOP3.LUT for AMD!!
Reply
#8
Except "updating GCN" to AMD just means a die shrink and adding more cores.

Edit: apparently not even a die shrink. 1000mm^2!!!
Reply
#9
(06-17-2015, 09:40 PM)epixoip Wrote: Except "updating GCN" to AMD just means a die shrink and adding more cores.

Edit: apparently not even a die shrink. 1000mm^2!!!

Definitely not. Even 2x 7970 would bring it up to "only" 700mm². First rumors said 600m².
Some serious websites estimated 480-540mm² by optical reengineering. So lets be a bit
conservative and put it in the Titan X range with 600mm². Still a very big chip but not
undoable.

GCN should be at least 1.2 like Tonga. Since 7970 had 1.0 and the memory controller
has changed, it'll be no simple "nailing two chips together".

In gaming benchmarks it seems to be slightly ahead of Titan X. We all know that under
hashcat everything will look differently. So let's wait and see.


EDIT: the whole package including the 4GB HBM-memory has a size of 1011mm²
Reply
#10
Btw. the latest AMD drivers are these Omega 14.12, which are not working under hashcat.
Did this change with the latest beta drivers? Otherwise it might be a bit difficult to test the Fury Wink

Edit: AMD claimes these 15.15 drivers to be needed for the new GPUs
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles...eries.aspx
Reply