If you wait 5 years you can get this card off ebay for £40.

Voted cold because of this. A 5 year wait isn't much, you could have a child and raise it in the meantime to keep yourself occupied.

​I agree newer hardware for possibly a similar price will come out. But 6 months is a long wait, especially as the waiting game for Pascal and Polaris is still on going. If you need a card this isn't a bad price. If you want to wait another 6 months then do it, but then why not wait another 6 months after that for the next gen after that?

The better cost effective option is to buy the Fury card and keep your sausage in the fridge. According to the national average, the first 12 months of a baby's life costs £9364 (national average in Jan 16).

Regards
Flea

Anybody that owns a GCN based like like the X80/X90 or indeed Fury should look at this:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1605674/computerbase-de-doom-vulkan-benchmarked

With Vulkan the Fury runs rings about the 1070 and 980ti.

I'm excited as a 290 owner to see Vulkan implemented in more games.

in stock now

Ordered one anyone know when they'll be in Stock? Showed 15th on hover before, doesn't anymore.

Will just need to hunt down a free sync monitor later and I'll be golden.

I'd grab this over 1070 at current prices. Will be plenty for me few years ahead at least.

Would this card with a freesync monitor be a better gaming experience than a 1070 with a non gsync monitor?

Makes me laugh when people say nvidia are cooler and more power efficient. Yes they may use 20 watts an hour less (but who honestly cares) and my 290x (those cards hotter than hell) tops out at 70 Celsius but only running at 35% fan speed. Now I've seen people benchmarking the 1070 and it hitting above that. Yes bog standard reference cards are hotter for AMD but who buys a reference card

don't make me pick up my dice

Name a few? (anything without monsters/zombies/dragons/wizards or other children's genres)

In DX11 but what about DX12 and Vulkan?

It's a trade off between future proofing and power efficiency. Both are good deals.

Also the Fury runs cool despite it's ridiculous TDP. Cooler than a 980 http://www.anandtech.com/show/9421/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-review-feat-sapphire-asus/17

Dunno why this isn't hotter. Price:Perf is better than an aftermarket RX480 at £250.

For decision what to buy - you need to look these things
1 What resolution you will play 1080p 1440p or 4k ?
2 What monitor you have Gsync or AMD FreeSync
3 Now what case do you have "can you cool down Radeons as they power hungry lot of heat "
4 What game type planing to play are you looking for fps games

So when you make decisions what you need first than look the GPU to mach you requirements and enjoy

Today you can have GTX 1080 after 6 month will be GTX 1080 Ti so GPU become "old" in 6 months It is business to make money They want people cash to upgrade to "betters " GPU etc

If you do not care about FPS and want to play games just get xbox one Slim or PS4 and forget about GPU etc.....

Now when compare price :
GPU £300
All PC components another 300 if not more = 300 +300 = £600 Just pure PC Now better keyboard mouse another £70 Now better monitor with 140 Hz another £400
So as you can see to have "Gaming PC rig " not really cheap

Where PS4 you can play on home TV Games now used one for £10 - 20 can be bought + you need PS4 subscription each year so £40

PS4 you can get for £200 + + 40 subscription = up to £300 you ready to play just buy games and play

Now when you buy PS4 games you can traded them where STEAM you have your library to download only So

I viewed the Bit Tech Fury X review when deciding to go Fiji, in the games benchmarked I could not see any limitation from the 4GB of RAM. I thing I also noted was as resolution increased the gap between say a 980 Ti 6GB and Fury X 4GB closed further, at points the gap was within error margin for bench testing IMO. This was also the same in the RX 480 review where the Fury X was using updated drivers compared with the earlier review.


I concur :smiley: .

I plan to wait for 3rd party 480 OC cards and driver maturation before I move from my 290. I'm not an FPS wh**e and my Freesync monitor ensures the experience is great, whether it's 35fps or 300fps.

If I can get a card that buys me entry to 50fps at decent detail on 1080p I'm happy.

Really the only reason to pay top dollar is 2k/4k, for now I'm not interested in those resolutions.

Lol what? I literally cannot keep up with the amount of quality titles coming out all the time. My backlog is insane and forever growing.

I saw a video about this today on YouTube, now I'm even more confused, I mean in all honesty what are the chances of all games in the future having Vulcan (like they should), with BF1 already in development and probably one of the only games I will get that is triple A rated, will they bother with Vulcan?
Edit; I just readthe devs of the Frostbite engine have said they will support Vulcan down the line!



If I get this card it means a new PSU as well, anybody got any recommendations? I have 32gb of RAM, i5 45xx and generally have 3/4 SSD/HDD as well, due to work and never over clock more than 10%

I play BF4 and CS. The only title I'm really looking forward to is Mafia III.

Devs seem intent on focusing on kiddies monsters/zombies/space guff all the time. The variety of titles on offer currently is poor.

I'm still rocking a GTX 660 in my new i7 rig but I only use my pc for light gaming and video editing. When I VR headsets become a realistic price (under £300) that I can use a few times then leave in the corner of the room after the tech demos, then I'll buy a new card and the VR headset, until then, the GTX 660 and Guildwars 2, Rift and Warcraft are fine.

Plenty of cards and nothing to play.

Anybody that owns a GCN based like like the X80/X90 or indeed Fury should look at this:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1605674/computerbase-de-doom-vulkan-benchmarked

With Vulkan the Fury runs rings about the 1070 and 980ti.

I'm excited as a 290 owner to see Vulkan implemented in more games.

wait for the gtx 1060

In my experience with a Fury X at 3440x1440, more vram is always nice but 4gb vram is a decent match for this cards power. You are more likely to run out of horsepower before you come close to hitting 4gb if your aim is to stay at 60fps at 1440p or higher.

Forget about this card if you plan to play at 1080p. Otherwise very hot.

I've had this card on my radar for a while now but the only reason I haven't purchased it is because of the coil whine.

The better cost effective option is to buy the Fury card and keep your sausage in the fridge. According to the national average, the first 12 months of a baby's life costs £9364 (national average in Jan 16).

Regards
Flea

the 480 is a weak card deliberately so, its aiming for the budget marker. This is a good good, but why spend £300 on this?? Vega due in 6 months ish which will be a superior card at a similar price point plus at that point nvidia will drop their prices

At this price point and graphical horsepower I would avoid anything which is 4gb or less. It is more than capable of running 1080p ultra settings on games which means you are more likely to hit vram limits. A few games already push 4gb now so would expect more to do so. Also if you are looking to go to 1440p+ you may want more vram.

I hear there's a card coming out in 2020 that's better than two 1080s for sub £200. I'll be getting that instead, voted cold...........................

This or a RX480?

Performance wise this is far superior to the RX480.

Heat added OP :sunglasses: , luv'd the Fury Tri-X I had at one point and would think the Nitro would be an improvement on the ref PCB.


I'm quite convinced Fiji is pretty good perf.per watt and probably gives the RX 480 a good run for it's money :wink: .

I've noted on this chart where Nano is (source).

Next let's take Fury X in the Bit Tech RX 480 review - Valley bench, it's got 50% higher score in the 1440P result and it used 50% more power (confirmed on forum that they use the 1440P bench for total system draw at wall).

Then I asked W1zzrd on TPU about performance per watt chart, reason for this in this post and answer here.