Overclocking, Temps, Sound and Pricing
Overclocking the ASUS Strix R9 Fury
One of the original complaints about the Fury X and the Fury was that they did not live up to the overclocking hype that AMD built up during the launch of the cards. Several key, and high ranking, AMD personnel sat on stage during a live streamed public event touting the benefits of a board designed for 375 watts of power draw and a cooler (on the Fury X at least) capable of cooling 500 watts of thermal output. The results were very underwhelming at the time and I’m sorry to say that nothing ASUS did with the board design or cooler integration seems to have changed that.
At stock, the ASUS Strix R9 Fury card runs at a GPU clock speed of 1000 MHz and a memory clock speed of 500 MHz (remember that HBM acts very differently than GDDR5 so that low frequency is not unexpected).
My top overclock for our ASUS Strix R9 Fury's GPU core? 1050 MHz.
Tweaking power limits and fan speeds really didn't help me at all, and even reaching the 1080 MHz level that I saw on my original Fury X sample was unattainable. This doesn’t appear to be any fault of ASUS or its cooler – the Strix design was able to keep GPU temperatures at 73C even with this additional voltage/clock speed running.
As you might guess, a 5% overclock on your GPU frequency isn’t going to amount to much of a performance chance in your games. My testing showed the changes to only be in the 3-4% range as the clock speed to performance scaling is never 1:1.
So where does that leave us for the overclocking capability of AMD Fury GPUs? Honestly… they just aren’t there. It’s possible that, even though AMD was talking about the ability for this 275 watt GPU to reach 375 watts and above, that just isn’t true. Does this mean that the upcoming AMD R9 Nano product, with a starting TDP of just 175 watts, will perform better in this area? Hopefully we’ll find out soon.
ASUS Strix R9 Fury Temperatures
So if the performance and overclocking capability of the ASUS Fury Strix and the other Fury cards on the market are pretty much unchanged, what does the Strix cooler actually buy us? Obviously it gets you the ability to play games at lower image quality settings and lower workloads in a completely silent environment (as far as the GPU is concerned) but it also results in lower temperatures.
While the AMD Fury X card with its beefy water cooler is able to keep the GPU running at just about 56C under an extended gaming work load, the Fury cards with traditional air coolers are bit higher. We measured the Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury at 75C with stock settings, but the new ASUS Fury Strix DirectCU III cooler is able to best that by another 5C, keeping the Fiji silicon at just 70C while looping through Metro: Last Light. Compare that to a similar cooler used on the Radeon R9 290X (DirectCU III version) and the GPU temperature of 81C – clearly AMD has improved power efficiency with Fiji.
ASUS Strix R9 Fury Sound Levels
Along with lower operating temperatures on the ASUS Strix R9 Fury card comes lower sound levels as well.
At idle, but Fury cards are dead silent in my estimation, registering only 30.5 dbA on our sound meter and in the office at as quiet an environment as we can create. Under a full gaming load, the same used to measure our temperatures, the ASUS DirectCU III cooler kept the gaming experience quiet as well, producing a total of 35.2 dbA (for the whole system). In comparison, the Sapphire Fury card ran a little quieter (at 32.3 dbA) but even the Fury X with its water cooler and pump whine registered as high as 36.4 dbA. Neither of NVIDIA’s reference cooler designs on the GTX 980 or GTX 980 Ti can run as quietly either, resulting in sound level readings of 36.7 dbA and 38.3 dbA respectively.=
Pricing and Availability
Since the introduction of both the AMD Fury X and Fury products, getting your hands on these graphics cards has been troublesome. It’s no secret that AMD has had production issues with the amount of High Bandwidth Memory that can by physically built, and that seems to be the limiting factor for AMD in this release. AMD surely knew that going into the launch, but it was running out of time to make Fiji a relevant and exciting product.
As a result, the ASUS Strix R9 Fury card remains difficult to find on Amazon.com or Newegg.
- Amazon.com listing
Newegg.com listing(This doesn’t even exist today…)
With an MSRP of just $549, the ASUS Strix R9 Fury is a very compelling card at this price point and would likely be a great selection for gamers targeting high frame rate 2560×1440 gaming or for those looking to enter the world of 4K screens. Obviously the R9 Fury supports the latest AMD Radeon features including XDMA CrossFire, FreeSync, Framerate Target Control, LiquidVR and more. If you want more details on the specifics of feature-level comparisons between the R9 Fury and NVIDIA’s GeForce lineup, check out the launch R9 Fury review for that.
Closing Thoughts
Overall I am very impressed with not only the AMD Radeon R9 Fury GPU, but also the implementation that ASUS put together in the form of the ASUS Strix R9 Fury OC. This graphics card combines the latest in AMD GPU technology, the fastest graphics memory sub-system in the world and a first-class PCB and cooler design into a package that any gamer would love to have. Performance comparisons put the ASUS Strix R9 Fury between the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti, as expected, and AMD continues to push forward with impressive gaming results in upcoming DX12 titles.
Yes, there are things to be concerned about – limited availability and unimpressive overclocking – but neither of those traits is specific to ASUS or this implementation of the GPU.
The ASUS Strix R9 Fury will find a new home as the primary GPU in our AMD Radeon graphics test bed here at the PC Perspective offices and I think that any PC gamer would be lucky to say the same.
An awesome card…when you can find it.
Editor's note: I am looking for feedback on this review style. This shorter, 3-page look at the ASUS Strix Fury card focuses on the per-card differences rather than stock performance because it is so similar to previously discussed products. If you think this collection of information and presentation is good OR bad, let me know in the comments below. -Ryan
Add to cart….
Add to cart…. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202157
Good news on the price, bad
Good news on the price, bad news on the overclockability. Will you be able to test the software unlock on this board?
some people have been able to
some people have been able to unlock some shaders on the fury and other r9 cards http://www.overclock.net/t/1567179/activation-of-cores-in-hawaii-tonga-and-fiji-unlockability-tester-ver-1-6-and-atomtool
I would also like to know
I would also like to know
The cooler on the Sapphire
The cooler on the Sapphire version is way better as in 15c cooler than the Asus.
Ryan, although the 3-page
Ryan, although the 3-page review style would seem fitting for most spins of what is essentially the same exact GPU but with custom cooler + minor variances in clock speed, this Asus GPU is using a custom PCB and other reviews show significantly less power consumption than the Sapphire version.
Provided it’s the same PCB and only insignificant differences outside of the cooler, 3-page reviews are fine. But for a product like this, it warrants further investigation.
Forgot to add —
Ideally,
Forgot to add —
Ideally, power consumption + overclocking for releases such as this one. For others with bog standard PCBs and only difference is the cooler, it only makes sense to test heat, noise, and overclocking (if limited by thermal headroom)
I did in fact test power, OC
I did in fact test power, OC and sound levels on the third page though…?
I can honestly say that I’ve
I can honestly say that I’ve never kept an OC on my 7970 for any substantial period of time, just never saw the point in it since I use a fixed refresh rate monitor (1080p @60hz) like the vast majority of people. I think this will actually change for many once VRR becomes more widely spread with wide VRR ranges where you can physically see the higher frames. For those wondering what I mean, on a Fixed refresh rate monitor(for example @60hz) if you run a game at 100 fps, you’ll only see 60 of those frames, while on a VRR monitor that has a window of 30hz – 144hz(for example) you’ll actually see those 100 frames.
You run (ran?) a powerful
You run (ran?) a powerful card on a very modest display, so of course overclocking wouldn’t help much. I run a 7950 on a 2304×1440 80hz (non VRR) display and the ~40% overclock helps immensely.
Congrats on your fw900
how is
Congrats on your fw900
how is she holding up 😉
One died (bad flyback
One died (bad flyback transformer, I think – probably fixable) and the other is still going strong after 15 years. Absolutely wonderful monitors.
Good point you brought up.
Good point you brought up. The difference between 60 and 80 fps with VRR is probably subtle for many people but it does exist. I remember playing DA:I on my overclocked GTX970 w 1080p G-Sync panel. I tuned settings to get ~75 fps in game. One time the overclock was disabled wihtout me knowing when I fired up the game. After playing for a bit the difference in motion blur from ~75 to ~60 fps was enough to realize the overclock wasn’t working.
Your point still stands even if someone can’t easily detect the difference visually.
great view its like some high
great view its like some high recommended graphics card. Intel iris graphics series.
at this price range,
at this price range, shouldn’t SLI benchmarks be included or at least brought up?
Against disposable income this card is a joke and its a big ass card.
Where is the SLI
SLI on an AMD card? That
SLI on an AMD card? That would have been a very interesting article.
was talking about 2x 950gtx
was talking about 2x 950gtx vs this, since in directx12 that will be 4gb of memory the same as this… LOL
Don’t be smart about some made up terminology that came from 3DFX and not team green that you are afraid of. “Crossfire”, or crosswires with AMD’s frame pacing drivers, is the same thing as SLI. 2 crossfire GPU’s is probably better than this card as well. I could care less about AMD or Nvidia like you, the point is that SLI is probably a better bargain in this price range. AMD SLI right now is probably the best bang for the buck. So get over yourself. You probably don’t even play games but just run benchmarks or troll for AMD. But i digress, AMD drivers are usually shit and the games are usually at the bargain bins before they run properly… AMD support did me wrong and i will never let some troll that proclaims alliance to that company pretend to show arrogance when they are clearly staring in the face of their own ignorance.
Oh my goodness, I think it’s
Oh my goodness, I think it’s John “Meltdown” Mellinger, the unabashed Nvidia troll who spams the Disqus comments on WCCF, who claims that anyone who disagrees with him “doesn’t even game” yet spends more time melting down and throwing his hissy fits than he actually spends gaming, who demands people post pictures of their rigs to prove… I dunno, SOMETHING… who claims to have had one bad experience with AMD and will never, ever, ever go back, and will in fact spend the rest of his life splattering his vitriol over the comment threads of every website that’ll let him get away with it without banning him, who got SUPER ANGRY at Nvidia over the 970’s memory partition fiasco and swore to switch to AMD, only to instead go with two 970’s in SLI……
I’ll tell ya, John, the whole “I bet you don’t even game, you just run benchmarks” attack never gets old. Oh wait, yes it does.
i like the 3 page thing as
i like the 3 page thing as long as all of the new to this product info is there. however i would really like it if you just put the old data in there and just explain that it was with a different card.
i need a reminder as to what the performance was without having to pull up an old article
Only 3 pages! what is this
Only 3 pages! what is this half-assed review, I demand benchmarks with every processor made since 2010.
Too bad on the overclocking
Too bad on the overclocking results. Overclocking is so easy today with programs like EVGA Precision X that the comparison many gamers will make is the overclocked performance benchmarks. I hope AMD finds a way to stabilize their GPU market share soon. Maybe Free Sync displays reaching more-or-less feature parity with G-Sync displays at a cheaper price will help push AMD GPU sales. (disclaimer: GTX970 owner).
This particular card limits
This particular card limits the power lower than other designs due to its custom PCB and phase design. This impacts the overclocking ceiling. This should be noted its not Representative of the Fury.
Fury simply does not
Fury simply does not overclock well.
I thought the 3 page review
I thought the 3 page review was alright. I did finish reading the review feeling like I got half of a review instead of a full one. I think just might need some adjusting on my part.
I do however think it would have been nice to see the card being reviewed labeled in the performance graphs on page 2. I understand that for the ASUS Strix Radeon R9 Fury the performance is similar to the stock Fury. That being said, it felt like to many corners where being cut. As a potential buyer, I want to know that the line on the graph actually represents the card I may or may not buy. Call it a false sense of security, but seeing the name make me feel like due diligence was done to show me, the reader/potential buyer, the performance of the graphics card.
Unbelievable, still no 390X
Unbelievable, still no 390X review
Is it me or is there a
Is it me or is there a pattern that Asus cards, for AMD graphics, are average performing cards? Or is there a pattern that Sapphire just produce above average cards?