Review Index:

ASUS Strix Radeon R9 Fury Review

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: ASUS

Stock Performance Overview

As I mentioned in the introduction to this review, you won’t see a whole lot of individual performance results in this review since they are basically identical to those we have previously posted. If you do happen to want the full rundown on how the AMD Fury compares to the Fury X, the R9 290X, the GTX 980 and the GTX 980 Ti, then please look over my first review of the GPU from last month.

Here’s a quick rundown based on our testing: the ASUS Strix R9 Fury and its AMD Fury GPU, in their out of box settings, creates an incredibly powerful enthusiast graphics card. Compared to the Radeon R9 290X, the Fury is about 30% faster and compared to the flagship Fury X product, the AMD Fury is only 8-10% slower. That puts the Fury in a great spot in AMD’s product lineup, producing results very close to those of the Fury X, without the need to mount a water cooler, all for $100 less.

View Full Size

The Sapphire F9 Fury results are listed, but match the ASUS Strix R9 Fury performance

If we see how the ASUS Strix R9 Fury compares to the likes of the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti, we see that it rests almost directly between them. In our testing, the GTX 980 Ti is about 10% faster overall but the GTX 980 is 15% slower. Obviously there is going to be some variance on a game to game basis in real world testing, of which I have included a few graphs below to demonstrate, but the general rules above seem to fit.

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

View Full Size

With a general overview of how the ASUS Strix R9 Fury card compares to the landscape behind us, let’s dive into what makes it unique.

Video News

August 26, 2015 | 11:42 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Add to cart....

August 26, 2015 | 11:42 AM - Posted by Randal_46

Good news on the price, bad news on the overclockability. Will you be able to test the software unlock on this board?

August 26, 2015 | 11:51 AM - Posted by Heavy (not verified)

some people have been able to unlock some shaders on the fury and other r9 cards

August 26, 2015 | 05:39 PM - Posted by Rick0502 (not verified)

I would also like to know

August 26, 2015 | 11:44 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The cooler on the Sapphire version is way better as in 15c cooler than the Asus.

August 26, 2015 | 12:01 PM - Posted by pelo (not verified)

Ryan, although the 3-page review style would seem fitting for most spins of what is essentially the same exact GPU but with custom cooler + minor variances in clock speed, this Asus GPU is using a custom PCB and other reviews show significantly less power consumption than the Sapphire version.

Provided it's the same PCB and only insignificant differences outside of the cooler, 3-page reviews are fine. But for a product like this, it warrants further investigation.

August 26, 2015 | 02:28 PM - Posted by pelo (not verified)

Forgot to add --

Ideally, power consumption + overclocking for releases such as this one. For others with bog standard PCBs and only difference is the cooler, it only makes sense to test heat, noise, and overclocking (if limited by thermal headroom)

August 26, 2015 | 08:44 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I did in fact test power, OC and sound levels on the third page though...?

August 26, 2015 | 12:12 PM - Posted by funandjam

I can honestly say that I've never kept an OC on my 7970 for any substantial period of time, just never saw the point in it since I use a fixed refresh rate monitor (1080p @60hz) like the vast majority of people. I think this will actually change for many once VRR becomes more widely spread with wide VRR ranges where you can physically see the higher frames. For those wondering what I mean, on a Fixed refresh rate monitor(for example @60hz) if you run a game at 100 fps, you'll only see 60 of those frames, while on a VRR monitor that has a window of 30hz - 144hz(for example) you'll actually see those 100 frames.

August 26, 2015 | 01:27 PM - Posted by JxcelDolghmQ (not verified)

You run (ran?) a powerful card on a very modest display, so of course overclocking wouldn't help much. I run a 7950 on a 2304x1440 80hz (non VRR) display and the ~40% overclock helps immensely.

August 26, 2015 | 02:12 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Congrats on your fw900
how is she holding up ;)

August 27, 2015 | 02:43 PM - Posted by JxcelDolghmQ (not verified)

One died (bad flyback transformer, I think - probably fixable) and the other is still going strong after 15 years. Absolutely wonderful monitors.

August 26, 2015 | 06:51 PM - Posted by Dr_Orgo

Good point you brought up. The difference between 60 and 80 fps with VRR is probably subtle for many people but it does exist. I remember playing DA:I on my overclocked GTX970 w 1080p G-Sync panel. I tuned settings to get ~75 fps in game. One time the overclock was disabled wihtout me knowing when I fired up the game. After playing for a bit the difference in motion blur from ~75 to ~60 fps was enough to realize the overclock wasn't working.

Your point still stands even if someone can't easily detect the difference visually.

August 26, 2015 | 12:41 PM - Posted by rahul (not verified)

great view its like some high recommended graphics card. Intel iris graphics series.

August 26, 2015 | 12:53 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

at this price range, shouldn't SLI benchmarks be included or at least brought up?

Against disposable income this card is a joke and its a big ass card.

Where is the SLI

August 26, 2015 | 01:27 PM - Posted by JohnGR

SLI on an AMD card? That would have been a very interesting article.

August 26, 2015 | 02:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

was talking about 2x 950gtx vs this, since in directx12 that will be 4gb of memory the same as this... LOL
Don't be smart about some made up terminology that came from 3DFX and not team green that you are afraid of. "Crossfire", or crosswires with AMD's frame pacing drivers, is the same thing as SLI. 2 crossfire GPU's is probably better than this card as well. I could care less about AMD or Nvidia like you, the point is that SLI is probably a better bargain in this price range. AMD SLI right now is probably the best bang for the buck. So get over yourself. You probably don't even play games but just run benchmarks or troll for AMD. But i digress, AMD drivers are usually shit and the games are usually at the bargain bins before they run properly... AMD support did me wrong and i will never let some troll that proclaims alliance to that company pretend to show arrogance when they are clearly staring in the face of their own ignorance.

August 26, 2015 | 03:48 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Oh my goodness, I think it's John "Meltdown" Mellinger, the unabashed Nvidia troll who spams the Disqus comments on WCCF, who claims that anyone who disagrees with him "doesn't even game" yet spends more time melting down and throwing his hissy fits than he actually spends gaming, who demands people post pictures of their rigs to prove... I dunno, SOMETHING... who claims to have had one bad experience with AMD and will never, ever, ever go back, and will in fact spend the rest of his life splattering his vitriol over the comment threads of every website that'll let him get away with it without banning him, who got SUPER ANGRY at Nvidia over the 970's memory partition fiasco and swore to switch to AMD, only to instead go with two 970's in SLI......

I'll tell ya, John, the whole "I bet you don't even game, you just run benchmarks" attack never gets old. Oh wait, yes it does.

August 26, 2015 | 01:30 PM - Posted by fkr

i like the 3 page thing as long as all of the new to this product info is there. however i would really like it if you just put the old data in there and just explain that it was with a different card.

i need a reminder as to what the performance was without having to pull up an old article

August 26, 2015 | 03:49 PM - Posted by Anonymous31276 (not verified)

Only 3 pages! what is this half-assed review, I demand benchmarks with every processor made since 2010.

August 26, 2015 | 06:34 PM - Posted by Dr_Orgo

Too bad on the overclocking results. Overclocking is so easy today with programs like EVGA Precision X that the comparison many gamers will make is the overclocked performance benchmarks. I hope AMD finds a way to stabilize their GPU market share soon. Maybe Free Sync displays reaching more-or-less feature parity with G-Sync displays at a cheaper price will help push AMD GPU sales. (disclaimer: GTX970 owner).

August 26, 2015 | 08:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

This particular card limits the power lower than other designs due to its custom PCB and phase design. This impacts the overclocking ceiling. This should be noted its not Representative of the Fury.

August 26, 2015 | 09:18 PM - Posted by fuegovision (not verified)

Fury simply does not overclock well.

August 27, 2015 | 01:18 AM - Posted by DerekR (not verified)

I thought the 3 page review was alright. I did finish reading the review feeling like I got half of a review instead of a full one. I think just might need some adjusting on my part.

I do however think it would have been nice to see the card being reviewed labeled in the performance graphs on page 2. I understand that for the ASUS Strix Radeon R9 Fury the performance is similar to the stock Fury. That being said, it felt like to many corners where being cut. As a potential buyer, I want to know that the line on the graph actually represents the card I may or may not buy. Call it a false sense of security, but seeing the name make me feel like due diligence was done to show me, the reader/potential buyer, the performance of the graphics card.

August 28, 2015 | 05:28 AM - Posted by J Nev (not verified)

Unbelievable, still no 390X review

September 5, 2015 | 08:59 PM - Posted by Rroce (not verified)

Is it me or is there a pattern that Asus cards, for AMD graphics, are average performing cards? Or is there a pattern that Sapphire just produce above average cards?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.