porno

AMD Fury X Gets Benchmarked on Far Cry 4



/ 1 year ago

AMD

Details about AMD’s latest Fury X graphics card have been focused on the hardware and specs. We did know the card came with AMD’s HBM technology and a lot of computing power. If you’ve missed the spec details, you can view them again here. So how well can it handle the latest games? Well, AMD seems to have ut it to the test.

The Fury X was recently benchmarked on Ubisoft’s latest Far Cry title, Far Cry 4, at the Beijing conference. The company showed that Fury X is able to handle 4K resolution while rendering Far Cry 4 in Ultra Settings at an average rate of 54FPS. The minimum was indeed 43FPS, but we are talking about 4K here and I’m sure nothing that is within an acceptable price range can handle that at the latter FPS.

rmqgAMg

AMD_Radeon_FuryX_20

Also, compared to other cards benchmarked on Far Cry 4, the Fury X seems to be at the top line. I mean it looks to have even taken on NVIDIA’s GTX Titan X as shown below. The only competition it has, according to the benchmarks, is the R9 295X2. However, you can’t really compare a dual-GPU card or an SLI configuration’s statistic with just a single card’s output.

uEbV1HN

What we need to know now is what price tag coming with this beast. We don’t want to speculate on a price right now, but since it’s AMD, we can’t be looking at something greater than what NVIDIA is asking for their own cards. Or will we?

Images courtesy of LinusTechTips


Topics: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Joseph Spears

    whole monkeys, it obliterated the Titan X, not even close. Hope this can hold true to other games. Need to keep in mind this is an Nvidia title too

    • Kato Berti

      You forgot one thing, the Titan X costs 1000$. To compare the 350$ difference to the difference in performance, you can see why it is a better choice, though I would wait with any of these affirmation till the real benchmarks come in.

      • Remon_Kewl

        Eh? The Fury X is both faster and cheaper. I don’t get what you mean.

        • Kato Berti

          I will never believe benchmarks released by either Nvidia or AMD 😛 you can’t say it obliterated the titan x for now. What I am saying is, even if it’s a tad slower, its 350$ cheaper. AMD has inflated their numbers several times now during their launches this is a fact. NVidia didn’t need to cause they had the advantage lately, but earlier they did the same. Now regarding the controversy with the review samples I am really worried about what is going on. The whole point of this long rant has two parts. Even if it turns out slower than the titan x, if it’s cheaper, smaller and cooler it is a worthy buy. Seconds, don’t just jump on the fanboy wagon, be it Nvidia or AMD, wait for the legit reviews to appear.

    • John Strickland

      Isn’t FarCry4 optimized for AMD hardware…Hmm,I believe it is. You dumbass!

      • doombadger

        No it’s optimised for Gameworks like all Ubisoft titles. You should know that if you’re going to comment.

      • Joseph Spears

        Rage much? Fan boys don’t even know their own titles. Yes FC is on a better engine than most games, but it is an Nvidia title and AMD drivers had to fix issues.

  • staticfx

    they said the pricetag was going to be $649 for the Fury X

  • Xblur

    either that second chart that compares the cards is wrong, or i have missed something, you are talking about fury and then show R9 295 X2?

    • Ryan Airth

      If you take the average in the 3rd image of the post, you can then compare it to the rest, I don’t see why they couldn’t do a quick edit in Photoshop or something but still.

      • Xblur

        so the r9 295 X2 can run it at 58 fps? how is that even possible, i thought the R9 295×2 was worst than the titan x

        • Greg Lindstrom

          295×2 is easily faster than a titan as long as game has crossfire profile.

          • John Strickland

            You are really going to compare a dual gpu card,(295X2) to a single gpu TitanX? You fucking idiot….lol