Most 2017 AAA titles had the FurX dropping fast below the 980Ti, and even the GTX1060/RX580/980 level. It's due to a combination of bad Tessellation/Geometry performance, limited VRAM and bad optimizations. And that's only 2 years after it's introduction to the market. Guess Kepler wasn't alone afterall. Here are the games affected (copied from multiple sources):
______________
Ark Survival Evolved
980Ti is 20~30% faster than FuryX @1080p and 1440p, even a GTX 1060 is faster or equal to FuryX!
Funny how when certain people are faced with hard numbers, simply shrug it off like it's nothing, instead of putting a valid argument against it.
Wyatt Cox
pls don't do this again
Ethan Gonzalez
So many Gimpworks and Novideo sponsored (more tesselation!) games.
Jackson Lewis
.02¢ have been deposited into your account.
Leo Mitchell
oh god last gen card arent top spec? i bet my radeon 9700 is better than a riva tnt2
Joshua Smith
makes you wonder why even bother buying amd when gameworks titles are this prolific
:thinking:
Ayden Johnson
wait™ for DX12 and Vulkan cockblocking goyworks
Eli Murphy
I shared his sentiment. How and why should I care? Is this just about the FuryX being weaker than hoped? I care about the future. How should this usefully influence my future purchases? Thank you.
David Jones
Fury X having a short life was expected when it released, no one thought that 4GB was a flagship card.
Lincoln Foster
but what about 2 fury (non x)?
Ethan Ross
Oh look, it's the Anandtech shilling squad, complete with the same post text as well.
Carson Perez
It's just the FuryX being a card that aged poorly. All other AMD cards aged very well. I remember when my R9 380 was competing against the 960 and now it gets better benches than the 970 and catches up to the 980.
Joseph Cooper
Seriously this
Aiden Sanders
As soon as 3.5GB became a real issue it was obvious that the Fury's and 4 GB 290X's wouldn't last much longer They're still compute beasts
