Digital Foundry: Radeon R9 390X 8GB review

[JEMC]

vivster said:

JEMC said:

vivster said:

980 is not the top card either. So I don't know what you want to say with that.

It's actually really surprising that they managed to boost the performance of the 390X as much as they did even though it's just a rebrand with minor improvements.

the 390X is the direct opponent to the 980 while the Fury X goes directly against the 980ti. The fury Pro should be somewhere between 980 and 980ti.

Yes, but then there's AMD's Fury Nano which they say will be faster than a 290X, putting it against the 980 too.

I think that Fury X and Fury are have the same chip, and that the main difference is the cooling. There's only $100 between them, there's no way AMD only charges that much for a better chip and the best cooling any reference card has ever had. But it makes sense to charge that little if the only difference is the cooler.

That would leave Fury X on par with 980Ti with lots of room for OC'ing, then the regular, air-cooled, Fury again on par with 980Ti but with limited OC-ability, and lastly Fury Nano to compete with the 980.

The Fury Pro has some shaders disabled, it will be quite noticeably below the 980ti.

I'm interested in the OC potential of the Fury X because the 980ti has some significant room for OC us well even under air cooling. There are even som custom cards going up to 40+% with room to spare.

I also read about the disabled parts, but I don't know if they come from AMD or from "other sources".

As far as OC, Fury X can get to 1,200 MHz without touching the voltage... but that's because voltage tweaking is so far disabled. AMD could launch a patch to enable it after launch. Memory overclock will probably be impossible, but with these cards it's fair to say that there's already plenty of bandwidth so it shouldn't be a problem. And the fan of the radiator doesn't go beyond 15% while regular gaming, so there's ample room for OC if there is a way to increase the voltages.