Since we were able to procure our own retail board, we can finally take a much closer look at different aspects of the card’s power consumption. Our findings prove to be very interesting indeed! Furthermore, we’ve also taken several days to analyze the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X’s pump and the annoying noises that it produces. Even more interesting findings await!
We’re using the same benchmark system that we used for our AMD Radeon R9 Fury X launch article. However, we’ve tweaked it a bit. The idle power consumption’s now being measured using a system that has a lot of the software on it that tends to accumulate over time. Last time, the system was completely “fresh.” This time around, linear interpolation was applied to the data by the oscilloscope, and not when it was analyzed.
The biggest change, which we’ll stick with for all future launch articles as well, concerns the content, though.
We’ll look at power consumption in direct relation to gaming performance, and we’ll do so separately for 1920x1080 and 3840x2160, since there are major differences between the two. We’ll also look at several different games, and even run some of them with different settings, such as tessellation. In addition, we’ve added some applications that aren’t related to gaming. Life’s not always just about gaming, after all.
Bear in mind that these tests are merely snapshots in specific applications. A benchmark not part of our suite will likely fall somewhere between our average figure and the torture test peak. There are no absolutes these days; best estimates will always consist of a range.
Comparatively, at least it doesn't reduce performance like the last 0.5 GB on the 970, and I don't remember tom's being on Nvidia's case about that much more serious issue.
Somehow I don't think a lot of PC stuff is rigorously specified. In this case I think samples were signed off by sales and marketing. This is how much of the PC industry is run.
They are really changing the pump. Someone tried to upper their margins by cutting quality. But all in all even the older pump is very quiet and with the right version situation gets even better.
The FuryX is very good card. Luckily so is 980ti even in bigger measurements! Interesting to see how air coolet Fury will change the situation. All in all 980ti will make FuryX cheaper and FuryX forced the Nvidia to make something else than TitanX to customers. Competition is good!
980ti is very good card and FuryX allmost gets there. Because of AMD problems with DX11 the situation may be reversed in DX12 games so in longer run the situation is even as it should be for the customers.
Hopefully we will soon see some retake when Toms will get the upgraded pump to the test. Also it seem that some parts that are not water cooled can get quite hot, so Air cooled basic Fury will be very interesting card to be get tested.
The situation in GPU part is better than for long times! The next year will be even more interesting, because we may see first finvet based GPUs and also second generation of HBM.
This is a follow-up, not the launch review. In the first part of this follow-up with power consumption measuring I have tested both cards in a lot of games and applications - together with the specific power draw for each card in each benchmark. This is more than other sites published. 10,240,000 single values - this wasn't done in a few hours.
Simply use the slider pics to compare power consumtion, performance and watts/fps. :)
This is only one example:
(the original, detailled review was in German)
Interesting that you see AMD somehow forcing Nvidia's hand, maybe Nvidia is just doing it's own thing and AMD are the one's playing catch up and having to release untested products in order to try and stay in the game. The GDDR5 bit is amusing enough as it indicates a design change that could explain why there was mention of the cards RAM using a fair bit of juice, it's also good to know that it can use Mantle but I didn't see mention of Freesync?