The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTGRID Autosport
For the racing game in our benchmark suite we have Codemasters’ GRID Autosport. Codemasters continues to set the bar for graphical fidelity in racing games, delivering realistic looking environments with layed with additional graphical effects. Based on their in-house EGO engine, GRID Autosport includes a DirectCompute based advanced lighting system in its highest quality settings, which incurs a significant performance penalty on lower-end cards but does a good job of emulating more realistic lighting within the game world.
Unfortunately for AMD, after a streak of wins and ties for AMD, things start going off the rails with GRID, very off the rails.
At 4K Ultra this is AMD’s single biggest 4K performance deficit; the card trails the GTX 980 Ti by 14%. The good news is that in the process the card cracks 60fps, so framerates are solid on an absolute basis, though there are still going to be some frames below 60fps for racing purists to contend with.
Where things get really bad is at 1440p, in a situation we have never seen before in a high-end AMD video card review. The R9 Fury X gets pummeled here, trailing the GTX 980 Ti by 30%, and even falling behind the GTX 980 and GTX 780 Ti. The reason it’s getting pummeled is because the R9 Fury X is CPU bottlenecked here; no matter what resolution we pick, the R9 Fury X can’t spit out more than about 82fps here at Ultra quality.
With GPU performance outgrowing CPU performance year after year, this is something that was due to happen sooner or later, and is a big reason that low-level APIs are about to come into the fold. And if it was going to happen anywhere, it would happen with a flagship level video card. Still, with an overclocked Core i7-4960X driving our testbed, this is also one of the most powerful systems available with respect to CPU performance, so AMD’s drivers are burning an incredible amount of CPU time here.
Ultimately GRID serves to cement our concerns about AMD’s performance at 1440p, as it’s very possible that this is the tip of the iceberg. DirectX 11 will go away eventually, but it will still take some time. In the meantime there are a number of 1440p gamers out there, especially with R9 Fury X otherwise being such a good fit for high frame rate 1440p gaming. Perhaps the biggest issue here is that this makes it very hard to justify pairing 1440p 144Hz monitors with AMD’s GPUs, as although 82.6fps is fine for a 60Hz monitor, these CPU issues are making it hard for AMD to deliver framerates more suitable/desirable for those high performance monitors.
458 Comments
View All Comments
Stuka87 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Thanks for all your efforts in getting this up Ryan!nathanddrews - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Worth the wait, as usual.Refuge - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Thanks for the review Ryan, I hope you are feeling better.jay401 - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Hear hear!akamateau - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
Fury X CRUSHES ALL nVidia SILICON with DX12 and Mantle.Ryan knows this but he doesn't want you to know.
In fact Radeon 290x si 33% faster than GTX 980 Ti with BOTH DX12 and Mantle. It is equal to Titan X.
nVidia siliocn is rubbish with DX12!!!
http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-en...
http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-290x-goes-head-to-he...
Refuge - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link
Those are draw calls, that isn't how you compare GPU's. lol.Thatguy97 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Finallykrumme - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
A good, thoughtfull, balanced review. From a person that clearly cares for gfx development and us as consumers. And thats what matters.Thatguy97 - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
IndeedLiviuTM - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
You can say that again.