R9 Fury

Is this card worth $240. How bad will the bottleneck be on a FX6300 overclocked?

Other urls found in this thread:

tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-afterburner-undervolt-radeon-r9-fury,4425.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>How bad will the bottleneck be on a FX6300

Badly, as will anything.

Anything beyond an r9 380 or gtx 960 will be bottlenecked by the fx6300.

>Is this card worth $240. How bad will the bottleneck be on a FX6300 overclocked?
A PS4 Slim will be
>cheaper
>not bottleneck
Be realistic guys, you get nowhere with your toasters.

Yeah I know. I should be fine in DX12/Vulkan games though. The bottleneck is supposed to be almost gone and it should compare with older i5s like Sandy/Ivy. Haswell gets to take advantage of high clocked DDR3. Skylake gets DDR4

AM3 has more than served its purpose

Will I get bottleneck on an rx 470? Also have 6300.

Yeah but this system has 10MB more cache, clockspeeds upwards of 4GHz, and almost double the flops of the PS4 Pro

CPU+GPU+Motherboard is less than the cost of the PS4 Pro

fuck off you actual shill.

>CPU+GPU+Motherboard is less than the cost of the PS4 Pro

>unironically paying for windows

>unironically paying for windows
>paying for hardware
>not stealing the entire $2000 GTX Titan powerhouse instead
If you go to prison, nigger, why only steal Windows? Make it worth it!

Don't buy the 470. For $10 more on sale, you can get a 4GB 480 or the 1050TI. 470 is a weirdly placed, over priced card.

Nigger, Windows 10 can be gotten for free or cheap legitly.

Here is the build I'm running. I'm using my old NH-D14 to keep the FX6300 frosty. I also have an addition 1TB Caviar Black drive from my previous PC

I personally would go for it and then hang on to it when you upgrade your PC.
The Fury is a steal at $260 considering most RX 480s go for nearly that much and it's much weaker.
But yea, you need to upgrade that CPU, it WILL bottleneck.

The 39" 4k TV I'm using as a monitor is limited to 30Hz at 4k and 120fps 1080P. This whole build is low budget. The TV only costs $260

The idea is if I need the game to run snappy I run 120fps 1080p. If I want the game to look as pretty as possible then I run 4k 30fps.

A 4k 32" costs $500+

Since bottlenecks more often that not show up at high fps than low I doubt I'll run into a lot of situations where the CPU is limiting me below 30fps.

Worth 240$ and the FX6300 will be fine in most games.

120 fps will only work in games that aren't demanding on the CPU. Like CSGO. UT4 should also work.
But 2160p, 30 fps will run great, as resolution doesn't impact the CPU.

Yeah I mean what's the point of running the best looking games cranked up to maximum settings if you are really worried about your fps

If I was rich then yeah I could get the best of both with $1000 for just the monitor and gpu. Even then the GTX1070 stuggles running new games at maximum settings 4k 60fps

I really want to buy Doom. I've heard Vulkan does wonders for AMD CPUs

Horrible bottleneck. Fury fucking sucks for 1080p and high framerates (like the 90FPS needed for VR) in general

FX6300 is fine for the RX470 if you already have the CPU. Otherwise don't buy it

Don't listen to the the others, the RX470 is the best price/perf 1080p card. Usually beats the GTX970.

I have a a8-5500 amd cpu. I also bought a gtx 1060 . How much will the bottle neck be? Will it be worth it for the i5 or i7

>Fury fucking sucks for 1080p
????
1060 performance isn't bad. Grabted if I had to choose between the 480 and Fury the 480 is obviously better, the Fury is too power hungry and hot, but it's not bad or anything.

Doom runs on some sort of black magic.

>Nigger, Windows 10 can be gotten for free or cheap legitly.
Not for new builds.

Yeah but if he didn't include it the sonygger would complain he's not including the price of the OS.

>Yeah but if he didn't include it the sonygger would complain he's not including the price of the OS.
The cheapo Xbone includes Windows 10 too.
Only PCucks get ripped of by Microsoft.

Yes, for new builds.

Doom on vulkan runs insanely good but yeah AMD does benefit more from it, probably because vulkan is based off AMDs Mantle API. That being said Nvidia still does see benefits from it.

There is no free Win10 for new builds, fampai.

Fury X is only about 10% better than the 480 in Dishonored 2.

As you mentioned, it's also high wattage. And a gen old.

Yes but thats a product sold directly by microsoft and included in the price, Microsoft does not own "PC" just the OS market.

what's the best card for a phenom II x4 3.2ghz cpu? I heard an rx470 but is there an Nvidia equivalent? Just curious.

Doesn't change, that you need an OS to play PC games, which is the most expensive part of a custom build PC.

>what's the best card for a phenom II x4 3.2ghz cpu?
Geforce 9800 GT
Everything else will bottleneck.

...

This, just get 480 8gb like I did or spend extra and get Fury X

Dishonored 2 doesn't look that great though. I'm shocked it can't do 60fps on a GTX980

He said free OR cheap. He's talking about buying russian keys for 20 bux

>Windows 10
>Monitor
>Mouse and keyboard
I never have to factor these in when I make a new PC. They are peripherals. Unless you want to add to the cost of a PS4 pro a 4K TV as well.

>AMD

Jesus the FX6300 is equal to the 2500k

It comes pretty close to the new i3 too

don't, seriously vram is an issue now, 6gb is a minimum these days
same reason 970 is dead in the water for recent games

>Unless you want to add to the cost of a PS4 pro a 4K TV as well.
I find it bizarre people keep emphasizing that the Pro is only $400. If you have a 4k TV why does the price of your gaming device matter so much? Or inversely, if you're a poorfag then why are you buying a Pro and 4k TV? To me it seems like the people interested in the Pro wouldn't actually care how much it costs.

>6gb is a minimum these days
Uwotm8?
I've been fine with 3 GB on my 280x.

The difference between high and ultra textures isn't even noticeable at 1080p. I have no idea why people are so obsessed with maxing out texture quality at 1080p. It reminds me if how dumb the 460 is, a 460 has 4GB of VRAM despite not being able to max out literally any new game aside from indieshit.

It's about optimization here. You can have a bad looking game and it will still run like shit because it just doesn't use system resources optimally.

I think AMD is making some good moves this year. 480 was a very affordable mid range card and flew right off the selves everywhere for the first few months. Zen is just a month away, their enthusiast range beating a 1k Intel CPU at half the price point, meanwhile Intel's next lineup offers a 1-7% increase in performance over the previous one, while also heating up ~15 C higher. Which is great, if you live in Greenland, I guess.

Also, AMD is reserving their 490 for the inevitable 1080 Ti release and their fury equivalent line up is a few months away. AMD doesn't have to win anything, it just needs to compete again, so we can get better pricing from Intel and nVidia.

If Pajeet delivers, then the consumer audience wins. I don't get the hate.

I'm playing Titanfall 2 just great on a 970.

>CPU
>59 °C
KEK
>I never have to factor these in when I make a new PC. They are peripherals.
They are mandatory to use a PC desktop, senpai.
> Unless you want to add to the cost of a PS4 pro a 4K TV as well.
99 % of households have a TV. That's why TV consoles sell. Any console comes bundled with a controller and that's all you ever need to operate it and play games on it.
Guess how many separate PC monitors with the right connectors normal people have in 2016. I don't mean leftover CRTs in the Attic.
Hint: Good PCs have their display already built in.

I am blind and can tell when AF is lower than x16, it eats ram not just texture size goes into it.

Might be Carmac's beautiful fingers on the the codebase.

The usual arguments people make in favor of their console of choice and its superiority to the PC is
>comfy
>cheaper
>better graphics

PC enthusiasts offer the counter arguments
>as comfy as you want it to be
>as cheap
>even better graphics

And then the shit flinging starts, because this is Sup Forums and we have to shitpost.

These benchmarks make me sad. These should be fps counts for at minimum 1440p. Yet here we are at an almost now outdated resolution with games that look worse than ever running worse than games from years ago that looked better.

>can tell when AF is less than 16x
Nick need to life oh there son

Anisotropic filtering is almost free on modern PC's, only consoles struggle with proper texture filtering for some reason. I was more talking about how some games say you can't max out texture quality unless you have greater than 4GB of VRAM. 99% of the time it doesn't even look much better. Rise of the Tomb Raider looks fine on my 980 maxed out @1080p aside from texture quality which requires more VRAM. DOOM is the same, requires 6GB for max textures but it barely makes a difference at 1080p. 6GB VRAM is for 1440p.

>They are mandatory to use a PC desktop, senpai
While a TV isn't? Or is it impossible for me to connect a PC to a TV?

>99 % of households have a TV
So your TV was built into the house? You never bought a TV?

>Hint: Good PCs have their display already built in.
Are you having a giggle, m8?

To be fair Watch Dogs 2 has Nvidia's proprietary temporal filtering, which is sort of like the Pro's checkerboard upscaling so you can play at 4k if you want. Granted on a monitor it will probably look blurry but on a 4k TV it will look ok.

>HDMI-compatible GPUs have existed since 2006
>people still don't realize you can plug in computers to TVs

>mfw I'm going to buy a 1080 this Friday
best manufacturer?

EVGA. Get an older model, too.

lol

haha epic, user!

The board is kind of shieet, but it works I guess.
Go for it. 240$ Fury is a great deal.

>While a TV isn't? Or is it impossible for me to connect a PC to a TV?
>people still don't realize you can plug in computers to TVs
Nobody is placing a PC TOWER inside his living room and sit with a keyboard and mouse in front of it playing PC games.
Have you 13yo manchildren ever lived in a regular person's household?

If you're so poor that buying a $100 monitor is out of the question why would you care what people thought of you playing PC games on a TV? And yes, people do that.

You think the only case form factor is full ATX towers?
Never hears of stream boxes like nvidia shield or steam box?
You don't know how to use controllers with PC game? Or the small kb/m couch tray solutions that are easy to set up and store when not in use?

HTPC master race here. Me and my roommate built an ITX HTPC with an i7 and use it as an emulation/pirated bluray/netflix machine. Pretty comfy.

Reminder to your goalpost shifting faggots is that you were discussing THIS post:

>HTPC master race here. Me and my roommate built an ITX HTPC with an i7 and use it as an emulation/pirated bluray/netflix machine. Pretty comfy.
And it did cost less than $400?
No, it didn't.

Uh, you were the one who originally moved the goal posts here.You said a monitor was necessary for PC gaming. It's not. The you respond by saying only manchildren play PC games on a TV. That's irrelevant to the discussion regardless of whether it's true or not.

>$396 PC
>You don't need a $60 monitor, use a TV and add a $60 controller instead
>For a TV setup you don't need a $40 tower, use a $400 HTPC case instead
You PC goalpost movers are really pathetic.

It does what I need it to do. I spent very little on it given the age of platform. I was running AM3 back in 2009

I have a 1070 and have to try really hard if i want games to go over 3gb vram

Does your TV have absolutely nothing plugged into it?
Anything short of a full size ATX case won't even be noticeable or occupy more space than a console anyway. While i don't use them, wireless keyboards/mice also are just as storable as controllers, and are easily sub $30 together.

Plus, if you aren't an asocial autistic spaz, every single company ditches outdated hardware, and no one gives a fuck if you ask for one. At most they tear out hard drives, in my experience pharmacy PCs they just tell me to wipe the drive completely, which i'd do anyway.

At a minimum, you can get a free case.

There are people that have been able to undervolt the Fury down to 210 watts without any performance loss. That's basically standard HD7970 power draw (at double the performance) which is what the Fury is replacing

Yeah my HD7970 usually struggles before I hit 3GB even at 4k.

I bought the fury and have zero regrets. It performs above the 480 consistently for roughly the same price. And the nitro is the best of the best, fully custom pcb, pile of snakes in copper tubing cooler and all that.
Overclocked it easily reaches fury x performance and my case can more than handle the heat output and my psu can more than handle the power draw.
Itll be a great way to get a more enjoyable experience as i await zen and vega to not only release, but also for them to completely sell out within days, be out of stock for over a month, and then be 20% over msrp for a fucking year or more.

>people who honestly believe theyll be able to get the latest shit day one without frantically awaiting the exact moment it becomes available for sale/ not be price gouged for months after it finally comes back in stock.

Kek

I'm waiting for the 490

Have you tried setting the clocks to stock and dropping the voltage?

tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-afterburner-undervolt-radeon-r9-fury,4425.html

They were able to make the Fury draw only 20 watts more than the GTX980 and still outperform it

I can't imagine reducing the power consumption hurts the GPU

one day