Official Fury X specs

[Grooveriding]

How do you know these guys are electrical engineers? Did I just miss those posts?

I can't find those posts either. I asked earlier but did not get a response.

If it was the same electrical engineer's comments that advised this post:

None of those adapters will work, it's an extremely complicated engineering issue as people far smarter than I am on the subject have already said. There is no fix for this.

Perhaps they were just ill informed ?

 

[Mako88]

Thanks for the info. I wish TV makers would just use display port it is simply better, the latest revision has higher bandwidth versus HDMI for example. But that doesn't excuse AMD leaving out an HDMI 2.0 port.

Tell me about it...I was shocked initially when I was in your spot a few months back and realized that DP ports were virtually extinct on new 4k sets.

How much more could it possibly cost to include it...a dollar? Especially when leveraged against the sales volume that Sony/Samsung/Vizio do, etc.

The whole issue is frustrating, but I also agree that it's been clear to AMD for over a year that major television vendors would not be supporting DP moving forward in favor of HDMI 2.0.

That, plus their leading competitor having full HDMI 2.0 support already, is why I voiced the thought earlier that people should/will be terminated at AMD for missing this issue. Unforgivable, unfortunately. Reminds me of the 2013 Xbox One E3 debacle...many were fired over that as MS is merciless.

 

[bryanW1995]

Looks like Mako88 and tential were both interested in getting a Fury X, until they found out it had no HDMI 2.0.

Still a chance it does have HDMI 2.0, but that chance is getting slim...

Nah, the chance is the same now as it was before...we're just more interested in the answer now.

 

[happy medium]

this subject is now in at least 3 threads, I remember people saying you need a converter box, the cables only good for 30hrz, its gonna cost like 100$
It was last night before I went to bed, so like 20 hours ago.

 

[Fallen Kell]

If pure FPS is what you want at a higher resolution, nothing from Nvidia does better than Fury at 4k res. So who's being a fanboy really? For what it is worth, i have a UHD TV and for some time now, and i would have loved for proper support to be there. It isn't. Nor is it on Nvidia, well fully as i would like for my TV. If you don't care for UHD playback, all you need is an adapter which should be here soonish. Higher FPS is higher FPS. As of last year, there were manufacturers working on making adapters which would do 4k-60hz.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/35-ca...-1-2-hdmi-2-0-adapter-there-manufacturer.html

Take your own advice.

OMG! Do you not even understand a single word that you wrote here? There have been manufacturers trying to come out with such an adapter for over a year now, and yet, we still have none on the market. Not a single manufacturer has released a product, not a single one has confirmed of a release date in sight. The best thing we have is a vague, might be Q4 2015, which might be Q1 2016, which might be even later, or never because by then there will already be a whole new generation of devices out, people who would have wanted this adapter will have given up and purchased other hardware that supports what they actually want to do, etc. We have no idea of the price of said mythical, non-existent adapter. It is speculated to be in the $100 range, but could just as easily be $150 or even $200.

And without such an adapter to connect the Fury X to the TV, you WON'T get higher FPS than a 980 TI, because your Fury X will never be able to display more than 30 FPS no matter how fast it might be able to calculate and draw them in the card because the TV won't accept more than 30, but the 980 TI using HDMI 2.0 will be able to push up to 60 FPS on the games that it can do so on... And going back a few pages, there are not many games that a 30 FPS limit would not greatly, negatively impact the performance of the Fury X at 4k compared to what a 980 TI would be able to do on the same TV all because it has HDMI 2.0 and can push up to 60 FPS refresh.

As has been said by many people, this is a HUGE oversight, and a massive blunder. The couple extra $ saved on the connector and minor design changes on the hardware itself to support the proper interconnect was a very poor trade-off given the current state of 4K displays.

So lets see what not having HDMI 2.0 actually means to all the people who have a modern 4K TV which doesn't have display port but only HDMI 2.0:

Edited to add slide with values reflecting limitation of not having HDMI 2.0 connection on Fury X to a 4K TV.

 

[maddie]

OMG! Do you not even understand a single word that you wrote here? There have been manufacturers trying to come out with such an adapter for over a year now, and yet, we still have none on the market. Not a single manufacturer has released a product, not a single one has confirmed of a release date in sight. The best thing we have is a vague, might be Q4 2015, which might be Q1 2016, which might be even later, or never because by then there will already be a whole new generation of devices out, people who would have wanted this adapter will have given up and purchased other hardware that supports what they actually want to do, etc. We have no idea of the price of said mythical, non-existent adapter. It is speculated to be in the $100 range, but could just as easily be $150 or even $200.

And without such an adapter to connect the Fury X to the TV, you WON'T get higher FPS than a 980 TI, because your Fury X will never be able to display more than 30 FPS no matter how fast it might be able to calculate and draw them in the card because the TV won't accept more than 30, but the 980 TI using HDMI 2.0 will be able to push up to 60 FPS on the games that it can do so on... And going back a few pages, there are not many games that a 30 FPS limit would not greatly, negatively impact the performance of the Fury X at 4k compared to what a 980 TI would be able to do on the same TV all because it has HDMI 2.0 and can push up to 60 FPS refresh.

As has been said by many people, this is a HUGE oversight, and a massive blunder. The couple extra $ saved on the connector and minor design changes on the hardware itself to support the proper interconnect was a very poor trade-off given the current state of 4K displays.

So lets see what not having HDMI 2.0 actually means to all the people who have a modern 4K TV which doesn't have display port but only HDMI 2.0:

That has got to be the smoothest 4K experience by far.

 

[DiogoDX]

Surprise to see all these AT users updating to 4K TVs. Gsync is dead now because everyone is buying a 980Ti to use in a 4KTV.


Threadcrapping is not allowed. This is an AMD forum
Markfw900

 

[piesquared]

Surprise to see all these AT users updating to 4K TVs. Gsync is dead now because everyone is buying a 980Ti to use in a 4KTV.

And they're even willing to sacrifice a good HTPC experience due to the 980ti being hot and loud. It's quite the 180 they're pulling! lol


Threadcrapping is not allowed. This is an AMD forum
Markfw900

 

[Mako88]

And they're even willing to sacrifice a good HTPC experience due to the 980ti being hot and loud. It's quite the 180 they're pulling! lol

EVGA makes a nice water hybrid AIO cooler 980 Ti, fyi. And gsync is nice, but not nicer than 48" for me personally. Once you go big even the 34" gsync displays are way too small/less immersive.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Right....they wanted to but can't because it won't support their setup. I would buy a Fury X on launch day if it supported DVI or if i could get an adapter that supported 1440p @ 120hz

There are display port to dual link DVI adapters out there that do support 1440p @ 120hz. You just need to be certain to get an "active adapter" (i.e. it needs power, via either USB or other power adapter). These kinds of adapters are not cheap either, usually around $120-130 (you might be able to find some that are around $100, but just about all the reviews on those units put the build quality as crap, and that includes the ones Apple sells for their Macbook Pros...get some reviews before you pick one).

 

[Eymar]

Haha, good point. It's either 980ti + hybrid cooler (~700-750) or Fury X + dongle (probably active so ~750). No HDMI 2.0 is definitely a misstep on AMD's part, but just a week ago people were worried about Fury being a stinker in performance. So I'll take the good (980ti level performance with 500w level CLC, small form factor with cool LEDs, Freesync (cheaper monitors) , HBM, most likely reason why 980ti is $650 and release earlier) over the bad (no hdmi 2.0\DVI, 4GB, GameWorks, rad placement, etc.)

 

[DigDog]

I'm curious to see how the 4GB of HBM Memory will play out. I know next to nothing about this memory. With it being a faster type will it require less?

I see as much as 5500 Vram usage in SoM. And a few other games are passing over 4. I used to think this didn't matter as long as the card wasn't choking and hitting a VRAM wall, but since moving away from 2gb I notice a significant difference in textures/IQ.

my thoughts exactly. i'm really flabbergasted that the rest of the 300 line still has GDDR5 though.

 

[Grooveriding]

Why would you take off the stock WC setup? Do you think that your custom setup will enable higher overclocking b/c of superior cooling ability?

If the dude with an unlimited gaming rig budget doesn't use 4k then it's probably not ready for prime time yet...but, I do find it curious that AMD would cater so effectively to clueless buyers of one category (8gb >>> 4gb YEAH!) but ignore another, likely wealthier, category (I MUST HAVE 4K FOR, UM, WELL, SOMETHING!).

Perhaps this was a marketing failure, after all. We'll see if this ends up being a tempest in a teapot or a serious issue, but...wow.

Obviously I don't know how much it would have cost AMD to put hdmi 2.0 on fury (whether in design phase or retro-fitting if possible), but it couldn't have been that expensive, right?

I wouldn't have anywhere to put the radiators from the fury cards. I have all my mounts apart from the rear 120 already full of radiators, plus I'll get better performance out of my water setup than what is on the Fury X stock.

As far as 4K I've tried it before. I briefly had the 32" IGZO from Asus and the Acer 32" IPS model. At the time I had 780ti in SLI and it was nowhere near enough to power games, the monitor was 4 grand with tax, returned it because it was not worth that to have a low framerate experience. I got the Acer later when the price of 4K screens tanked and sent it back when 1440p IPS gsync was announced, but those are plagued with QA issues.

I'll jump on 4K again once the GPU power is there to maintain 50-60fps minimums, anything lower than that is an awful experience. You're talking dual GM200 only pushing 35fps avg and awful 20fps minimums in games like GTA V or Witcher 3. GPUs just aren't ready yet without compromises.

Even seeing the Fury X improve 4K performance from gm200 doesn't mean it will vastly improve things. We need big GPUs on a new process to make it work for max settings users on a dual card setup and for the current experience of 2 cards to be brought to a single card user.

 

[TemjinGold]

Samsung 48JU7500, highly recommended. Great long threads on it at both AVS and HardOCP now, particularly towards a gaming/desktop focus. Currently the best 4k-television-as-pc-display on the market, and by a wide margin.

Okay I'm probably derailing now but this thread got me more interested in your TV than a Fury X lol. How does that model compare to the lower ones like JU7100, JU6500, etc.? Is it just the 3D glasses or are you giving up something else?

 

[n0x1ous]

There are display port to dual link DVI adapters out there that do support 1440p @ 120hz. You just need to be certain to get an "active adapter" (i.e. it needs power, via either USB or other power adapter). These kinds of adapters are not cheap either, usually around $120-130 (you might be able to find some that are around $100, but just about all the reviews on those units put the build quality as crap, and that includes the ones Apple sells for their Macbook Pros...get some reviews before you pick one).

Ive looked hard and yet to find one that supports 1440P @ 120hz.... @ 60hz yes - 1080p @ 120 hz yes but never found any that do 1440p at 120hz

please link if you know of one.

 

[Mako88]

Okay I'm probably derailing now but this thread got me more interested in your TV than a Fury X lol. How does that model compare to the lower ones like JU7100, JU6500, etc.? Is it just the 3D glasses or are you giving up something else?

I actually bought the 48JU6700 initially but swapped it for the 48JU7500.

The main difference was in the display lag (ghosting) which was slightly more prominent on the 6700 versus the 7500. I also liked the gloss reflective coating on the 7500 versus the matte coating on the 6700, it seems to make the colors pop a bit more.

Other diffs were being able to run 4:4:4 on any of the HDMI 2.0 ports on the 7500 versus just the first port on the 6700, and a faster engine as the 7500 is a true 120Hz display while the 6700 is limited to 60Hz true.

Both are/were excellent however, many in the threads stuck with the 6700 and love it now three months later so don't be afraid to go either way.

 

[TemjinGold]

I actually bought the 48JU6700 initially but swapped it for the 48JU7500.

The main difference was in the display lag (ghosting) which was slightly more prominent on the 6700 versus the 7500. I also liked the gloss reflective coating on the 7500 versus the matte coating on the 6700, it seems to make the colors pop a bit more.

Other diffs were being able to run 4:4:4 on any of the HDMI 2.0 ports on the 7500 versus just the first port on the 6700, and a faster engine as the 7500 is a true 120Hz display while the 6700 is limited to 60Hz true.

Both are/were excellent however, many in the threads stuck with the 6700 and love it now three months later so don't be afraid to go either way.

Good to know. I'm actually wondering more against the 7100 as I don't know if it's worth the extra for the curve (which I assume is the main thing different as I don't care about the glasses.)

 

[happy medium]

48JU7500

Dam that's not a bad TV for 1250$. Is this it?
http://www.eastcoasttvs.com/Samsung-LED-HDTV-p/un48ju7500.htm?utm_source=bingads&utm_medium=PPC

 

[Mako88]

Good to know. I'm actually wondering more against the 7100 as I don't know if it's worth the extra for the curve (which I assume is the main thing different as I don't care about the glasses.)

The curve is a funny thing. I sit 36" away from the screen, so the curve is noticeable in terms of the edges of your peripheral vision, and I feel it adds a bit of immersiveness in game.

But if I had to give it up would I be bummed that I lost the curve? Hmm, hard to say. I like it but I don't feel it's mandatory in terms of a feature. And certainly if you're going to be more than a few feet away in terms of view distance forget it, not needed.

Dam that's not a bad TV for 1250$. Is this it?
http://www.eastcoasttvs.com/Samsung-LED-HDTV-p/un48ju7500.htm?utm_source=bingads&utm_medium=PPC

That's the one, was very happy to see it when it first started shipping because until that point there were no 44-50" 4k televisions that could do 4:4:4 via HDMI 2.0 on the market for under $2k.

Samsung took that big step and hopefully now every vendor will eventually give in and give the high end market what it wants, which certainly isn't the crippled 4:2:2 (or even worse 4:2:0) chroma they had been giving us prior.

 

[TemjinGold]

Thanks for the info. My other question was, between the 7500 and 7100, are you ONLY losing the curve? Or is there something else.

 

[Mako88]

Thanks for the info. My other question was, between the 7500 and 7100, are you ONLY losing the curve? Or is there something else.

Just the curve. No other differences as they're identical, just as the 6500/6700 are also identical.

All of them are like having IMAX on your desk, one of the best upgrades I've ever done. A cool shock every time I boot up the PC.

 

[TemjinGold]

Awesome, thanks!

Now let's get back to talking Fury X haha. It sounds like I might need to join your camp of being upset with no HDMI 2.0...

 

[flopper]

Tell me about it...I was shocked initially when I was in your spot a few months back and realized that DP ports were virtually extinct on new 4k sets.

How much more could it possibly cost to include it...a dollar? Especially when leveraged against the sales volume that Sony/Samsung/Vizio do, etc.

The whole issue is frustrating, but I also agree that it's been clear to AMD for over a year that major television vendors would not be supporting DP moving forward in favor of HDMI 2.0.

That, plus their leading competitor having full HDMI 2.0 support already, is why I voiced the thought earlier that people should/will be terminated at AMD for missing this issue. Unforgivable, unfortunately. Reminds me of the 2013 Xbox One E3 debacle...many were fired over that as MS is merciless.

Nvidia dont have full sport for hdmi2.
buy a panasonic TV they have DP on theirs issue solved.

 

[Mako88]

Awesome, thanks!

Now let's get back to talking Fury X haha. It sounds like I might need to join your camp of being upset with no HDMI 2.0...

Someone in another thread said that this isn't a surprise as AMD is on the ropes and is lucky just to get anything competitive out the door in a decent timeframe.

He basically said that as we know the whole line are rehashed SKUs, Fiji itself is only 40% new from the Tonga core design, and with the stock price being beaten so low thanks to Intel the entire company is an acquisition target and those sorts of distractions create issues.

Have mercy in other words.

In that light it makes more sense, an omission of this magnitude, something that slips through the cracks. Similar to that quantum gaff where they were caught with an Intel CPU and Z97 board inside the demo unit embarrassingly. Small details that get missed, which lead to big mistakes publically.

I can't imagine a world where Nvidia, or Intel for that matter, have free run to price their products where they want without concern of competition or threat of being passed. Titan X will look cheap in comparison to that nightmare...and it's why Skylake isn't any faster than products Intel produced three full calendar years ago in benchmarks.

Hopefully AMD can stay in the fight, sell a shit-ton of products and bounceback with Zen, and become that 50% marketshare hero that saves us from the alternative.

 

[Mako88]

Damn. Confirmation, just came in tonight:

http://www.twitch.tv/thetechreport/b/670328467

Jump to 36:00...

"It is the case that the display block on this card hasn't changed substantially from the Tonga. As a result, HDMI 2.0 is not supported by this card."

Well shoot, that's it then. Nothing we can do. Fury X is a fantastic card, it deserves all of our support, tremendous value for anyone with a display port on their monitor. Bad mistake about HDMI 2.0, hopefully corrected at some point early next year.

Keep it to one thread next time please. No need to post the same across 4 different threads.

-Rvenger