AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark performance

Published: June 10th, 2015 | Comments

We are less than a week before official announcement, and probably even further from actual reviews to show up. Well, I’m not sure how ’bout you, but I’m tired of waiting. 

Those who follow our site, know that I do my best to post the most accurate synthetic results as soon as possible. It requires three things, a good source with credible information (thanks Lisa!), enough data with small variance and few energy drinks — not exactly in this order.

AMD Radeon Fury X to compete against GeForce GTX TITAN X

If you ask someone if Fury X is either faster or slower than TITAN X, then you can expect only one answer — it depends.

In FireStrike Ultra which is rendered in 4K we can see Fury doing better than Maxwell-based competition, but once we move to lower resolutions (1440p), there might be a problem picking up the clear winner. Calling either card a winner is impossible, because both cards perform within a margin of error.

Fury X does just as good in CrossFire as it does in single-GPU mode. The scaling is close to GM200-based products (~176%).

We are still lacking overclocking performance, but I’m already working on it (I will update this chart when I have more information).

In terms of specs, all I can tell you for sure is that AMD Radeon Fury X has 1050 MHz core clock, 500 MHz memory clock and 4GB HBM-1 memory across 4096-bit interface. Thanks to CompuBench leak, we already know Fury X comes with 64 Compute Units (pointing at 4096 Stream Cores).

Things to consider:

  • Percentage is calculated as an average from both 3DMark presets.
  • We do not know if the Fury X sample(s) were water-cooled.
  • I did my best to include only results with i7-5960X CPU.
  • My chart is awesome.

AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark FireStrike

AMD Radeon Fury X 3DMark Score

 

Source

by WhyCry

Tags:


Previous Post
AMD Radeon Fury pictured
  Next Post
AMD Radeon Fury X pictured some more



Back to Top ↑