AMD is on a driver quality kick right now that should pay dividends for anyone with their hardware. They've seen the light and have even hired Damage aka Scott Wasson from Tech Report to assure driver quality and performance. That's a huge step.
Honestly I can't tell the difference between Catalyst and Crimson drivers. They just renamed the package and bumped the driver model from v15.10 to v15.12 (most current display driver is v15.30)
I immediately saw a 30W drop in power usage while watching videos (YouTube) by using Crimson drivers (on an R9 290).
I tested the same videos before and after, naturally.
As for additional performance... who cares? Drivers usually only deliver a few % here and there. The DX11 performance of my card should be better given the hardware capabilities, no doubt, but my card will still be viable for years to come, even with DX12 - where it gets a significant boost in performance. Practically no nVidia owner can say the same.
Of course, I won't be keeping the card for many more years (I plan on upgrading my full system throughout 2017).
You will however see the difference between DX11 and DX12 ran the new API testing that 3DMark has implemented over the past month (this was on my system with the new card in question):
There are a few tweaks like additional per-game settings. If you're on a HDD based system (especially a laptop) it launches a lot faster. There's lots of other changes but most of them are driver-related under the hood improvements and have nothing to do with the GUI. As with all driver updates, most people won't notice unless they were having a glaring issue that got patched. That doesn't mean there aren't improvements. :-)
This covers a lot of the content I forgot about. In particular I forgot about stuff like LFC until I was reading a review of a new monitor and it reminded me. Frame pacing on older rendering paths is nice too. One day I'll even own a VRR monitor when they get really cheap.
So you're thinking that sapphire is really just trying to do an air cooled super-fury x? I agree that it's odd to spend all of this r&d to beef up the second best gpu in the lineup.
I thought that sapphire would do this ad an underhanded way to do an air cooled fury x since amd doesn't allow non-reference fury x cards (I think?). You're only allowed to do a non-reference card for the fury. So if sapphire wanted to do a suped up fury x, it has to technically be a fury.
Oh nice thanks for the links. I wasn't aware that there was some success doing this - usually modern cards are too locked down for this sort of unlock to work. Back in the day it was a lot more common. The dual BIOS would probably come in handy if you unlock it and it's not stable.
I'd think they'd want this out for the Christmas buying season. Once 2016 hits, people will probably be looking forward to the launch of Arctic Islands/Pascal. I know I will.
I've owned several Sapphire cards over the years (5870, 7970) and they always were of high quality. My 7970 came with their custom cooler, which was very efficient and silent.
Unfortunately AMD "lagged" a bit too much on the release of their Fury cards, so I jumped the gun and (at the time) got a 980GTX to play Witcher 3 and other stuff.
Hopefully, by the time I feel the need to upgrade my video card again (2017 maybe), they'll have the card I need at the right time.
As I do not live in the United States, (or the northern hemisphere for that matter), the price you usually get for these cards is wildly different. All the time, AMD has the best bang for the buck here on video cards at the top end, which is why I've bought their cards for several generations. When I bought my 7970, the competing 580GTX was actually more expensive (here) and lower performing, so it's always been an easy choice.
The thing people never seem to consider is Fury-X is not mature, it's manufacturing design and memory are brand new and have virtually no headroom yet.
The GTX980, on the other hand, overclocks extremely well. Some cards can be 10% faster than reference. This while using less power and creating less heat.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are confusing as hell. They were not economically motivated but they were economically motivated? I hope this was challenging as can be to write, because I feel like I should get paid for trying to read it.
The fact that the Maxwell 2 architecture is more power efficient for graphics is pretty much uncontested, really. But the price reality here is quite different.
When I purchased my GTX980, at the time, I paid the equivalent of $1100+. A GTX 980 Ti costs over $1200 here right now, while the 980 has "dropped" to around $850.
Meanwhile, a Fury X can be had for around $950 (equivalent). I know the prices are absurd, but it's my reality. And honestly, I can't say that a 980 Ti, as awesome as it is, truly is 250+ USDs better than a Fury X. I suppose the same can be said about the 980 and the Fury X ($100) tho.
I have this card currently, just got it in yesterday, the price is 499.00 on newegg (I got one of the last ones as they are now sold out everywhere) the card became available on the 21st of December. Runs like a dream and replaced my aging 290x. There is still some room for OCing it as well, although I prefer to use MSI Afterburner (they just did a update to it for W10), not doing too much to it thogh as I just got the card...I'll push its limits slowly XD
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
wingless - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
AMD is on a driver quality kick right now that should pay dividends for anyone with their hardware. They've seen the light and have even hired Damage aka Scott Wasson from Tech Report to assure driver quality and performance. That's a huge step.ImSpartacus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
Wait, what does that have to do with the article? I might've missed something.nathanddrews - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
Because AMD.Samus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
Honestly I can't tell the difference between Catalyst and Crimson drivers. They just renamed the package and bumped the driver model from v15.10 to v15.12 (most current display driver is v15.30)Just PR.
Gigaplex - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
They've also introduced a new control panel. And melted some cards with their improved quality insurance fan controls.OrphanageExplosion - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
Not seeing much in the way of improvement to performance with Crimson. Driver overhead on DX11 still way too high compared to nVidia :/looncraz - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
I immediately saw a 30W drop in power usage while watching videos (YouTube) by using Crimson drivers (on an R9 290).I tested the same videos before and after, naturally.
As for additional performance... who cares? Drivers usually only deliver a few % here and there. The DX11 performance of my card should be better given the hardware capabilities, no doubt, but my card will still be viable for years to come, even with DX12 - where it gets a significant boost in performance. Practically no nVidia owner can say the same.
Of course, I won't be keeping the card for many more years (I plan on upgrading my full system throughout 2017).
Akaimahomiru - Saturday, December 26, 2015 - link
You will however see the difference between DX11 and DX12 ran the new API testing that 3DMark has implemented over the past month (this was on my system with the new card in question):https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/...
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/...
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/...
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/...
Alexvrb - Saturday, December 19, 2015 - link
There are a few tweaks like additional per-game settings. If you're on a HDD based system (especially a laptop) it launches a lot faster. There's lots of other changes but most of them are driver-related under the hood improvements and have nothing to do with the GUI. As with all driver updates, most people won't notice unless they were having a glaring issue that got patched. That doesn't mean there aren't improvements. :-)Alexvrb - Sunday, December 20, 2015 - link
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Ra...This covers a lot of the content I forgot about. In particular I forgot about stuff like LFC until I was reading a review of a new monitor and it reminded me. Frame pacing on older rendering paths is nice too. One day I'll even own a VRR monitor when they get really cheap.
Mondozai - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
So basically, get one of these and get a high chance of getting a Fury X with a custom PCB and even more efficient cooling.Great deal, but is it too late? Jan of 2016 is one helluva bet to launch a new version of a big GPU.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
So you're thinking that sapphire is really just trying to do an air cooled super-fury x? I agree that it's odd to spend all of this r&d to beef up the second best gpu in the lineup.RussianSensation - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
I think he is implying that there is a high likelihood that some of these will unlock to a Fury X because the previous Sapphire Fury Tri-X did:http://wccftech.com/howto-checking-r9-fury-unlock-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedMicroDevices/comm...
In other words, his point is that you could potentially end up with a sub-$500 Fury X on a custom PCB + one of the best after-market air coolers.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
I see. I didn't know about that.I thought that sapphire would do this ad an underhanded way to do an air cooled fury x since amd doesn't allow non-reference fury x cards (I think?). You're only allowed to do a non-reference card for the fury. So if sapphire wanted to do a suped up fury x, it has to technically be a fury.
Alexvrb - Saturday, December 19, 2015 - link
Oh nice thanks for the links. I wasn't aware that there was some success doing this - usually modern cards are too locked down for this sort of unlock to work. Back in the day it was a lot more common. The dual BIOS would probably come in handy if you unlock it and it's not stable.Mr Perfect - Friday, December 18, 2015 - link
I'd think they'd want this out for the Christmas buying season. Once 2016 hits, people will probably be looking forward to the launch of Arctic Islands/Pascal. I know I will.auralcircuitry - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
It's already in stock at Newegg, I ordered one yesterday. Seems they launched early.LordanSS - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
I've owned several Sapphire cards over the years (5870, 7970) and they always were of high quality. My 7970 came with their custom cooler, which was very efficient and silent.Unfortunately AMD "lagged" a bit too much on the release of their Fury cards, so I jumped the gun and (at the time) got a 980GTX to play Witcher 3 and other stuff.
Hopefully, by the time I feel the need to upgrade my video card again (2017 maybe), they'll have the card I need at the right time.
As I do not live in the United States, (or the northern hemisphere for that matter), the price you usually get for these cards is wildly different. All the time, AMD has the best bang for the buck here on video cards at the top end, which is why I've bought their cards for several generations. When I bought my 7970, the competing 580GTX was actually more expensive (here) and lower performing, so it's always been an easy choice.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
The 980 is an outstanding card so you can't go wrong.Samus - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
The thing people never seem to consider is Fury-X is not mature, it's manufacturing design and memory are brand new and have virtually no headroom yet.The GTX980, on the other hand, overclocks extremely well. Some cards can be 10% faster than reference. This while using less power and creating less heat.
chrnochime - Friday, December 18, 2015 - link
oc of 10% higher is extremely well? I thought at least 20% is "extremely well"fanofanand - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are confusing as hell. They were not economically motivated but they were economically motivated? I hope this was challenging as can be to write, because I feel like I should get paid for trying to read it.LordanSS - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link
The fact that the Maxwell 2 architecture is more power efficient for graphics is pretty much uncontested, really. But the price reality here is quite different.When I purchased my GTX980, at the time, I paid the equivalent of $1100+. A GTX 980 Ti costs over $1200 here right now, while the 980 has "dropped" to around $850.
Meanwhile, a Fury X can be had for around $950 (equivalent). I know the prices are absurd, but it's my reality. And honestly, I can't say that a 980 Ti, as awesome as it is, truly is 250+ USDs better than a Fury X. I suppose the same can be said about the 980 and the Fury X ($100) tho.
Akaimahomiru - Thursday, December 24, 2015 - link
I have this card currently, just got it in yesterday, the price is 499.00 on newegg (I got one of the last ones as they are now sold out everywhere) the card became available on the 21st of December. Runs like a dream and replaced my aging 290x. There is still some room for OCing it as well, although I prefer to use MSI Afterburner (they just did a update to it for W10), not doing too much to it thogh as I just got the card...I'll push its limits slowly XDjimjamjamie - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
Sapphire's web page for this card states the power consumption is <375W - this seems awfully high?