The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTMiddle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Our next benchmark is Monolith’s popular open-world action game, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. One of our current-gen console multiplatform titles, Shadow of Mordor is plenty punishing on its own, and at Ultra settings it absolutely devours VRAM, showcasing the knock-on effect of current-gen consoles have on VRAM requirements.
With Shadow of Mordor things finally start looking up for AMD, as the R9 Fury X scores its first win. Okay, it’s more of a tie than a win, but it’s farther than the R9 Fury X has made it so far.
At 4K with Ultra settings the R9 Fury X manages an average of 48.3fps, a virtual tie with the GTX 980 Ti and its 47.9fps. Dropping down to Very High quality does see AMD pull back just a bit, but with a difference between the two cards of just 0.7fps, it’s hardly worth worrying about. Even 2560 looks good for AMD here, trailing the GTX 980 Ti by just over 1fps, at an average framerate of over 80fps. Overall the R9 Fury X delivers 98% to 101% of the performance of the GTX 980 Ti, more or less tying the direct competitor to AMD’s latest card.
Meanwhile compared to the R9 290X, the R9 Fury X doesn’t see quite the same gains. Performance is a fairly consistent 26-28% ahead of the R9 290X, less than what we’ve seen elsewhere. Earlier we discussed how the R9 Fury X’s performance gains will depend on which part of the GPU is getting stressed the most; tasks that stress the shaders show the most gains, and tasks that stress geometry or the ROPs potentially show the lowest gains. In the case of SoM, I believe we’re seeing at least a partial case of being geometry/ROP influenced.
Unfortunately for AMD, the minimum framerate situation isn’t quite as good as the averages. These framerates aren’t bad – the R9 Fury X is always over 30fps – but even accounting for the higher variability of minimum framerates, they’re trailing the GTX 980 Ti by 13-15% with Ultra quality settings. Interestingly at 4K with Very High quality settings the minimum framerate gap is just 3%, in which case what we are most likely seeing is the impact of running Ultra settings with only 4GB of VRAM. The 4GB cards don’t get punished too much for it, but for R9 Fury X and its 4GB of HBM, it is beginning to crack under the pressure of what is admittedly one of our more VRAM-demanding games.
458 Comments
View All Comments
Stuka87 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Thanks for all your efforts in getting this up Ryan!nathanddrews - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Worth the wait, as usual.Refuge - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Thanks for the review Ryan, I hope you are feeling better.jay401 - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Hear hear!akamateau - Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - link
Fury X CRUSHES ALL nVidia SILICON with DX12 and Mantle.Ryan knows this but he doesn't want you to know.
In fact Radeon 290x si 33% faster than GTX 980 Ti with BOTH DX12 and Mantle. It is equal to Titan X.
nVidia siliocn is rubbish with DX12!!!
http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-en...
http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-290x-goes-head-to-he...
Refuge - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - link
Those are draw calls, that isn't how you compare GPU's. lol.Thatguy97 - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Finallykrumme - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
A good, thoughtfull, balanced review. From a person that clearly cares for gfx development and us as consumers. And thats what matters.Thatguy97 - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
IndeedLiviuTM - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
You can say that again.