Retail Card Design
AMD is in an interesting spot right now. The general consensus is that both the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X and the R9 Fury graphics cards had successful launches into the enthusiast community. We found that the performance of the Fury X was slightly under that of the GTX 980 Ti from NVIDIA, but also that the noise levels and power draw were so improved on Fiji over Hawaii that many users would dive head first into the new flagship from the red team.
The launch of the non-X AMD Fury card was even more interesting – here was a card with a GPU performing better than the competition in a price point that NVIDIA didn’t have an exact answer. The performance gap between the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti resulted in a $550 graphics card that AMD had a victory with. Add in the third Fiji-based product due out in a few short weeks, the R9 Nano, and you have a robust family of products that don’t exactly dominate the market but do put AMD in a positive position unlike any it has seen in recent years.
But there are some problems. First and foremost for AMD, continuing drops in market share. With the most recent reports from multiple source claiming that AMD’s Q2 2015 share has dropped to 18%, an all-time low in the last decade or so, AMD needs some growth and they need it now. Here’s the catch: AMD can’t make enough of the Fiji chip to affect that number at all. The Fury X, Fury and Nano are going to be hard to find for the foreseeable future thanks to production limits on the HBM (high bandwidth memory) integration; that same feature that helps make Fiji the compelling product it is. I have been keeping an eye on the stock of the Fury and Fury X products and found that it often can’t be found anywhere in the US for purchase. Maybe even more damning is the fact that the Radeon R9 Fury, the card that is supposed to be the model customizable by AMD board partners, still only has two options available: the Sapphire, which we reviewed when it launched, and the ASUS Strix R9 Fury that we are reviewing today.
AMD’s product and financial issues aside, the fact is that the Radeon R9 Fury 4GB and the ASUS Strix iteration of it are damned good products. ASUS has done its usual job of improving on the design of the reference PCB and cooler, added in some great features and packaged it up a price that is competitive and well worth the investment for enthusiast gamers. Our review today will only lightly touch on out-of-box performance of the Strix card mostly because it is so similar to that of the initial Fury review we posted in July. Instead I will look at the changes to the positioning of the AMD Fury product (if any) and how the cooler and design of the Strix product helps it stand out. Overclocking, power consumption and noise will all be evaluated as well.
Subject: Graphics Cards | August 25, 2015 - 02:23 PM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: Radeon R9 Nano, radeon, r9 nano, hbm, graphics, gpu, amd
New detailed photos of the upcoming Radeon R9 Nano have surfaced, and Ryan has confirmed with AMD that these are in fact real.
We've seen the outside of the card before, but for the first time we are provided a detailed look under the hood.
The cooler is quite compact and has copper heatpipes for both core and VRM
The R9 Nano is a very small card and it will be powered with a single 8-pin power connector directed toward the back.
Connectivity is provided via three DisplayPort outputs and a single HDMI port
And fans of backplates will need to seek 3rd-party offerings as it looks like this will have a bare PCB around back.
We will keep you updated if any official specifications become available, and of course we'll have complete coverage once the R9 Nano is officially launched!
Introduction, Specifications, and Packaging
We have reviewed a lot of Variable Refresh Rate displays over the past several years now, and for the most part, these displays have come with some form of price premium attached. Nvidia’s G-Sync tech requires an additional module that adds some cost to the parts list for those displays. AMD took a while to get their FreeSync tech pushed through the scaler makers, and with the added effort needed to implement these new parts, display makers naturally pushed the new features into their higher end displays first. Just look at the specs of these displays:
- ASUS PG278Q 27in TN 1440P 144Hz G-Sync
- Acer XB270H 27in TN 1080P 144Hz G-Sync
- Acer XB280HK 28in TN 4K 60Hz G-Sync
- Acer XB270HU 27in IPS 1440P 144Hz G-Sync
- LG 34UM67 34in IPS 25x18 21:9 48-75Hz FreeSync
- BenQ XL2730Z 27in TN 1440P 40-144Hz FreeSync
- Acer XG270HU 27in TN 1440P 40-144Hz FreeSync
- ASUS MG279Q 27in IPS 1440P 144Hz FreeSync (35-90Hz)
Most of the reviewed VRR panels are 1440P or higher, and the only 1080P display currently runs $500. This unfortunately leaves VRR technology at a price point that is simply out of reach of gamers unable to drop half a grand on a display. What we need was a good 1080P display with a *full* VRR range. Bonus points to high refresh rates and in the case of a FreeSync display, a minimum refresh rate low enough that a typical game will not run below it. This shouldn’t be too hard since 1080P is not that demanding on even lower cost hardware these days. Who was up to this challenge?
Nixeus has answered this call with their new Nixeus Vue display. This is a 24” 1080P 144Hz FreeSync display with a VRR bottom limit of 30 FPS. It comes in two models, distinguished by a trailing letter in the model. The NX-VUE24B contains a ‘base’ model stand with only tilt support, while the NX-VUE24A contains a ‘premium’ stand with full height, rotation, and tilt support.
Does the $330-350 dollar Nixues Vue 24" FreeSync monitor fit the bill?
Subject: Graphics Cards | July 17, 2015 - 08:20 AM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: radeon, r9 nano, hbm, Fiji, amd
AMD has spilled the beans on at least one aspect of the R9 Nano: the release timeframe. On their Q2 earnings call yesterday AMD CEO Lisa Su made this telling remark:
“Fury just launched, actually this week, and we will be launching Nano in the August timeframe.”
Image credit: VideoCardz.com
Wccftech had the story based on the AMD earnings call, but unfortunately there is no other new information the card just yet. We've speculated on how much lower clocks would need to be to meet the 175W target with full Fiji silicon, and it's going to be significant. The air coolers we've seen on the Fury (non-X) cards to date have extended well beyond the PCB, and the Nano is a mini-ITX form factor design.
Regardless of where the final GPU and memory clock numbers are I think it's safe to assume there won't be much (if any) overclocking headroom. Then again, of the card does have higher performance than the 290X in a mini ITX package at 175W, I don't think OC headroom will be a drawback. I guess we'll have to keep waiting for more information on the official specs before the end of August.
Fiji brings the (non-X) Fury
Last month was a big one for AMD. At E3 the company hosted its own press conference to announce the Radeon R9 300-series of graphics as well as the new family of products based on the Fiji GPU. It started with the Fury X, a flagship $650 graphics card with an integrated water cooler that was well received. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was a necessary move for AMD to compete with NVIDIA on the high end of the discrete graphics market.
At the event AMD also talked about the Radeon R9 Fury (without the X) as the version of Fiji that would be taken by board partners to add custom coolers and even PCB designs. (They also talked about the R9 Nano and a dual-GPU version of Fiji, but nothing new is available on those products yet.) The Fury, priced $100 lower than the Fury X at $549, is going back to a more classic GPU design. There is no "reference" product though, so cooler and PCB designs are going to vary from card to card. We already have two different cards in our hands that differ dramatically from one another.
The Fury cuts down the Fiji GPU a bit with fewer stream processors and texture units, but keeps most other specs the same. This includes the 4GB of HBM (high bandwidth memory), 64 ROP count and even the TDP / board power. Performance is great and it creates an interesting comparison between itself and the GeForce GTX 980 cards on the market. Let's dive into this review!
SLI and CrossFire
Last week I sat down with a set of three AMD Radeon R9 Fury X cards, our sampled review card as well as two retail cards purchased from Newegg, to see how the reports of the pump whine noise from the cards was shaping up. I'm not going to dive into that debate again here in this story as I think we have covered it pretty well thus far in that story as well as on our various podcasts, but rest assured we are continuing to look into the revisions of the Fury X to see if AMD and Cooler Master were actually able to fix the issue.
What we have to cover today is something very different, and likely much more interesting for a wider range of users. When you have three AMD Fury X cards in your hands, you of course have to do some multi-GPU testing with them. With our set I was able to run both 2-Way and 3-Way CrossFire with the new AMD flagship card and compare them directly to the comparable NVIDIA offering, the GeForce GTX 980 Ti.
There isn't much else I need to do to build up this story, is there? If you are curious how well the new AMD Fury X scales in CrossFire with two and even three GPUs, this is where you'll find your answers.
Subject: Graphics Cards | July 7, 2015 - 11:59 AM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: Radeon Fury, radeon, HBM1, amd
As reported by VideoCardz.com the upcoming Radeon Fury card specs have been leaked (and confirmed, according to the report), and the air-cooled card is said to have 8 fewer compute units enabled and a slightly slower core clock.
The report pictures a pair of Sapphire cards, both using the Tri-X triple-fan air cooler. The first is a reference-clocked version which will be 1000 MHz (50 Hz slower than the Fury X), and an overclocked version at 1040 MHz. And what of the rest of the specs? VideoCardz has created this table:
The total number of compute units is 56 (8 fewer than the Fury X), which at 64 stream cores per unit results in 3584 for the non-X GPU. TMU count drops to 224, and HBM1 memory speed is unchanged at 1000 MHz effective. VideoCardz is listing the ROP count at an unchanged 64, but this (along with the rest of the report, of course) has not been officially announced.
The board will apparently be identical to the reference Fury X
Retail price on this card had been announced by AMD as $549, and with the modest reduction in specs (and hopefully some overclocking headroom) this could be an attractive option to compete with the GTX 980, though it will probably need to beat the 980's performance or at least match its $500 price to be relevant in the current market. With these specs it looks like it will only be slightly behind the Fury X so pricing shouldn't be much of an issue for AMD just yet.
Subject: Graphics Cards | July 2, 2015 - 02:03 PM | Ryan Shrout
Tagged: amd, radeon, fury x, pump whine
According to a couple of users from the Anandtech forums and others, there is another wave of AMD Fury X cards making their way out into the world. Opening up the top of the Fury X card to reveal the Cooler Master built water cooler pump, there are two different configurations in circulation. One has a teal and white Cooler Master sticker, the second one has a shiny CM logo embossed on it.
This is apparently a different pump implementation than we have seen thus far.
You might have read our recent story looking at the review sample as well as two retail purchased Fury X cards where we discovered that the initial pump whine and noise that AMD claimed would be gone, in fact remained to pester gamers. As it turns out, all three of our cards have the teal/white CM logo.
Our three Fury X cards have the same sticker on them.
Based on at least a couple of user reports, this different pump variation does not have the same level of pump whine that we have seen to date. If that's the case, it's great news - AMD has started pushing out Fury X cards to the retail market that don't whine and squeal!
If this sticker/label difference is in fact the indicator for a newer, quieter pump, it does leave us with a few questions. Do current Fury X owners with louder coolers get to exchange them through RMA? Is it possible that these new pump decals are not indicative of a total pump change over and this is just chance? I have asked AMD for details on this new information already, and in fact have been asking for AMD's input on the issue since the day of retail release. So far, no one has wanted to comment on it publicly or offer me any direction as to what is changing and when.
I hope for the gamers' sake that this new pump sticker somehow will be the tell-tale sign that you have a changed cooler implementation. Unfortunately for now, the only way to know if you are buying one of these is to install it in your system and listen or to wait for it to arrive and take the lid off the Fury X. (It's a Hex 1.5 screw by the way.)
Though our budget is more than slightly stretched, I'm keeping an eye out for more Fury X cards to show up for sale to get some more random samples in-house!
Retail cards still suffer from the issue
In our review of AMD's latest flagship graphics card, the Radeon R9 Fury X, I noticed and commented on the unique sound that the card was producing during our testing. A high pitched whine, emanating from the pump of the self-contained water cooler designed by Cooler Master, was obvious from the moment our test system was powered on and remained constant during use. I talked with a couple of other reviewers about the issue before the launch of the card and it seemed that I wasn't alone. Looking around other reviews of the Fury X, most make mention of this squeal specifically.
Noise from graphics cards come in many forms. There is the most obvious and common noise from on-board fans and the air it moves. Less frequently, but distinctly, the sound of inductor coil whine comes up. Fan noise spikes when the GPU gets hot, causing the fans to need to spin faster and move more air across the heatsink, which keeps everything running cool. Coil whine changes pitch based on the frame rate (and the frequency of power delivery on the card) and can be alleviated by using higher quality components on the board itself.
But the sound of our Fury X was unique: it was caused by the pump itself and it was constant. The noise it produced did not change as the load on the GPU varied. It was also 'pitchy' - a whine that seemed to pierce through other sounds in the office. A close analog might be the sound of an older, CRT TV or monitor that is left powered on without input.
In our review process, AMD told us the solution was fixed. In an email sent to the media just prior to the Fury X launch, an AMD rep stated:
In regards to the “pump whine”, AMD received feedback that during open bench testing some cards emit a mild “whining” noise. This is normal for most high speed liquid cooling pumps; Usually the end user cannot hear the noise as the pumps are installed in the chassis, and the radiator fan is louder than the pump. Since the AMD Radeon™ R9 Fury X radiator fan is near silent, this pump noise is more noticeable.
The issue is limited to a very small batch of initial production samples and we have worked with the manufacturer to improve the acoustic profile of the pump. This problem has been resolved and a fix added to production parts and is not an issue.
I would disagree that this is "normal" but even so, taking AMD at its word, I wrote that we heard the noise but also that AMD had claimed to have addressed it. Other reviewers noted the same comment from AMD, saying the result was fixed. But very quickly after launch some users were posting videos on YouTube and on forums with the same (or worse) sounds and noise. We had already started bringing in a pair of additional Fury X retail cards from Newegg in order to do some performance testing, so it seemed like a logical next step for us to test these retail cards in terms of pump noise as well.
First, let's get the bad news out of the way: both of the retail AMD Radeon R9 Fury X cards that arrived in our offices exhibit 'worse' noise, in the form of both whining and buzzing, compared to our review sample. In this write up, I'll attempt to showcase the noise profile of the three Fury X cards in our possession, as well as how they compare to the Radeon R9 295X2 (another water cooled card) and the GeForce GTX 980 Ti reference design - added for comparison.
Subject: Graphics Cards | June 25, 2015 - 02:42 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: 4GB, amd, Fiji, Fury, fury x, hbm, R9, radeon
[H]ard|OCP used a slightly different configuration to test the new R9 Fury X, an i7-3770K on an ASUS PB287Q as opposed to an i7-3960X and an ASUS P9X79, the SSD is slightly different but the RAM remains the same at 16GB of DDR3-1600. [H] also used the same driver as we did and found similar difficulties using it with R9-2xx cards which is why that card was tested with the Catalyst 15.5 Beta. When testing The Witcher 3 the GTX 980 Ti came out on top overall but it is worth noting the Fury's 70% performance increase over the 290X when HairWorks was enabled. Their overall conclusions matched what Ryan saw, read them for yourself right here.
"We review AMD's new Fiji GPU comprising the new AMD Radeon R9 Fury X video card with stacked chip technology High Bandwidth Memory. We take this video card through its paces, make comparisons and find out what it can do for us in real world gameplay. Is this $649 video card competitive? Is it truly geared for 4K gaming as AMD says?"
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- AMD's Radeon R9 Fury X @ The Tech Report
- AMD R9 Fury X Review; Fiji Arrives @ Hardware Canucks
- AMD Fury X @ HardwareHeaven
- AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4 GB @ techPowerUp
- MSI R9 390X GAMING 8G @ [H]ard|OCP
- MSI R7 370 GAMING 2G Review @ Neoseeker
- PowerColor PCS+ R9 390 8GB Review @ OCC
- PowerColor TurboDuo R9 290 4GB OC @ [H]ard|OCP
- EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC+ 6 GB @ techPowerUp
- EVGA GTX 970 SSC @ HardwareHeaven