I don't think AMD failed to deliver, they actually brave enough to invest on HBM and get it into market first.  That alone is a credit.  Just like they did with GDDR5.  Only this time their involvement in HBM is more direct.

Despite alot of problem in manufacturing the chip, they manage to at least match the 980Ti performance, and the best part their pricing is still lower than 980Ti. 

Maybe our expectation is too high on AMD for this card to beat the Titan X. For sure nvidia Pascal is more mature product when it is release, but AMD will have the upper hand in terms of experience and familiarities with HBM technology.

lol what how come its tottaly different from what amd benchmark themselves



I'm so glad I followed your rant about the card and be skeptic about it . My next card going to be 980 ti for sure
To thought that watercooling would actually benefit fury x in terms of overclocking but mere 5% increase 

wtf even my single 970 can get 11k score

I tot at least gonna hit 15-16k

for 970 ?

1587/118

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/7439068

I think my post kinda disrespect amd thread but where have the new fury x owner gone to ???

Enjoying the card is it 

A bit scared kena marah dengan taiko post nvidia crap on amd thread . Really tempted purchasing fury even want to go for trip to kl
screw postage

You don't need AA when on 4K la.

Anyway I've already tested the Fury X. It's a nice piece of device but the performance is variance is huge when compared to GTX 980 / GTX 980 Ti.

Bro is it true they said the drivers reviewer used to benchmark fury x is the older driver not intended for the card for optimum performance and there is latest version out now
which improve the performance ?

Exactly the same thing, just that I probably went through more shit.

I lost many hours of sleep and benchmark / article time.

3 hours ah? I spent some 6 hours at least.

My rig works with R9 295X2 / R9 270X / R7 250 / R9 280X / GTX 980 / GTX 980 Ti / GTX 970.

1st card. R9 390X. Screen goes crazy. Manage to benchmark with Beta 15.5. Stress test OK, Windows is where things go shitty. I didn't use the driver from the CD. 4K didn't work, black screen.

2nd Card. R9 390. Black screen. WTH.

OK fine. Not working. Changed CPU / MOBO / PSU / Drive / Install fresh and whatever - nope, not working.

Fine, got the R9 Fury X. Installed driver from CD because whatever on the AMD site doesn't work. OK done. Works flawlessly.

Tried the R9 390X now - Oh ok it works. Finally I get to bench it on 4K with no glitches.

Now tried R9 390 - same shit. Arggh. Downgrade drivers / Upgrade drivers, nope didn't work.

R7 370. Absolutely no problem.

Final thoughts - AMD released quite some shitty stuff, I don't even know how to write about it. I didn't do any video like what he did because I am not a good presenter and I thought it could be a faulty card.

My last encounter was just 2 hours ago, tried the R9 390 - black screen.

Decided to install drivers from the box, booted with my R7 250. Installed the drivers and switched card.

This time the card reaches Windows 8.1 but the screen goes black once drivers loaded.

Black screen issue is not something new for Hawaii, my prime suspect for it is the memory controller because for some odd reason it's very sensitive to core voltage. My previous MSI TwinFrozr 290 gave me headache where I can't even undervolt more than 12mV without it getting black screened, my current 290X is more stable, undervolt 37mV no problem at all (both at it's factory clockspeed). On 390/X where they boosted the memory by 1GHz more than 290/X it's not going to be pretty. When I overclocked my card to 390X speeds, some time it worked with 38mV voltage increase, some other time it black screened and need 50mV to be stable.

In any case, this is AMD fault in the first place. AMD doesnt even officially 'recognize' the issue for the 290x and 290 is related to voltage issue.
AMD did acknowledge the issue by claiming it is fixable by driver and yes, it did.......

No, what I mean is it needs that voltage to reach 390X speeds. I can overclock the card without voltage increase, around 1070 for core and 1400 memory. Havent tested much because I only do benching. When gaming I underclock and undervolt.

Correct me if im wrong. Was talking with friend and below topic comes out.

His power supply 850 watts.

He said choose nvdia will saves power.

But no matter you choose which card, your power input/consumption is 850 watts.

Am i right ?

One of my friend said (Electronic background)

How to explain this bill (bill price is dummy data) :

850W PS --> Use 250W ---> Bill is RM 400

500W PS --> use 250W ---> Bill is RM 250

Note : Please ignore other household appliance. We are doing comparison.

But haven't answer me if the consumption is same, why difference in bill ?

does AMD driver have no issues with RGB 0-255? Does it detect your monitor as LCD TV or PC monitor?

Because nvidia haven't fixed this yet.  When you hook up your monitor through hdmi, the RGB will be limited to 16-235. As this is the default standard for HDMI devices. Normal for LCD TV.

By default it will use YCbCr 4:4:4. (or RGB 4:4:4: Pixel Format PC Standard (Full RGB) in some beta driver i've used)

not monitor. The hdmi interface.  It is known issue.  Now they already fixed it i guess.

Damn, that card is faster than my 290x.