Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unboxed for today's video we're winding the clock all the way back to the early days of HP m graphics cards that is to say 2015 and on hands we have the Radeon r9 fury X the very first graphics card to feature high bandwidth memory it won't be long now till if your ex has its second birthday and although that makes it kind of old recently it seems like many PC gamers have been snapping up brand-new versions from major online retailers such as Amazon in fact as I was putting this video together Amazon had a brand-new XFX fury X that's almost as many X's as Larry King has on sale for just three hundred and eight dollars with free shipping for us shoppers this recent fury X fire sale had quite a few of you wondering if you should purchase the discounted Radeon graphics card or pony up the extra cash for a geforce gtx 1070 for the most part the 1070 costs around 390 dollars though gigabytes mini ITX OC version can be found for as little as three hundred and sixty dollars u.s. as a side note unless you find a good secondhand deal locally or can order one at a good price from the US the fury x looks to be a pretty bad buy down under anyway I decided to throw the fury X in our test machine and see how it compares since I have just recently updated my results in 16 new games using recently released drivers it was the perfect time to start comparing the previous generation GPUs with that let's get to the benchmarks the fury X plots in between the gtx 1060 and 1070 in rise of the Tomb Raider with an average of 77 fps that made it 15% slower than the gtx 1070 but 24 percent faster than the RX 480 again the fury x can be found hovering between the gtx 1060 and 1070 though this time it was closer to the 1070 lagging just 12% behind with 58 FPS at 1440p using the DirectX 12 API to test the division we see that the fury X does very well almost matching the performance of the gtx 1070 here it was just 3% faster with an average of 60 FPS which is impressive to see the fury X continues its strong form delivering 81 frames per second in hitman making it 1% faster than the gtx 1070 of course this is an AMD sponsored tile but that's an impressive result nonetheless given what we have seen previously from quantum break these results aren't terribly surprising the fury Rex is only able to keep pace with the gtx 1060 the 3 gigabyte model mind you so not great performance here in relation to the gtx 1070 as it was 23% slower the fury ax was only able to match the minimum frame rate of the gtx 1066 gigabyte in overwatch though the average frame rate was quite a bit stronger overall the fury ax was 16% slower than the gtx 1070 doom with vulcan was one of the games i expected to go the fury axes way and while it did here it was 11% faster thanks to a healthy 155 FPS on average that said the minimum frame rate was almost identical to that of the gtx 1070 so overall you can expect a similar gaming experience in this title total war Warhammer has some more slightly misleading results for us here the fury ax was one percent faster on average though that doesn't tell the entire story as the minimum frame rate was 13% lower when compared to the gtx 1070 Mirror's Edge catalyst serves up more typical looking results as the Furyk sits between the gtx 1060 and 1070 here overall the fury X was 12% well than 1070 as it delivered an average of 61 FPS at 1440p the fury Rex performs quite well in f1 2016 despite being 17% slower than the gtx 1070 not a bad result and it meant that AMD's last generation flagship GP was a good bit faster than the RX 480 and gtx 1060 Deus Ex mankind divided is another AMD sponsored title so you would expect the fury X to perform well here and indeed it does that said it's still trailed the gtx 1070 though only by a 2% margin and here we do see similar minimum frame rates one of the most popular titles we benchmark is battlefield 1 and it's great to see the fury acts so competitive here an average of 80 FPS meant that the fury axe was just 7% slower than the gtx 1070 generally speaking mafia 3 runs like crap but on the fury x it's not too bad and the performance is certainly comparable to the gtx 1070 as it was just 5% slower another game where the fury x looks quite strong is Gears of War 4 here it was again just 5% slower than the gtx 1070 with an average of 71 fps the Fuhrer X was just 6% slower than the gtx 1070 when testing titanfall 2 and here we see a very healthy 77 FPS on average at 1440p meanwhile the frame rates also never dipped below 61 fps in our 60 second benchmark paths civilization 6 is another game that we tested exclusively using DirectX 12 though surprisingly the fury ax is still 9% slower than the gtx 1070 here moreover it's not a great deal faster than the RX 480 Call of Duty infinite warfare is a game where AMD generally does well and this is true for fury X which was just 6% slower than the gtx 1070 with a frame rate of 75 FPS the fury x averaged 77 fps in our dishonored 2 tests which admittedly isn't conducted in a very demanding section of the game and we've done this to avoid a cpu bottleneck anyway here the fury acts really struggled and was only able to deliver similar performance to that of the GTX 10 63 gigabyte finally have watchdogs 2 and again this is another title weather fury X really struggles the usually here seem to be vrm and all those stuttering or any kind of performance he cuts weren't noticeable or noticed at all the framerate performance was certainly limited as a result the fury X was 23% slower than the gtx 1070 in this title finally have the power consumption figures and as you would expect from a previous generation AMD GPU the numbers aren't great the fury acts push total system consumption of 384 watts and that means the system was consuming 33% more power when compared to the gtx 1070 configuration still around 350 watts for a total system load when gaming isn't exactly shocking and that means our test system would run happily with an efficient 500 watt power supply for example right so we have all the numbers in from the 16 games tested that were all released in 2016 so how does the fury ax stack up against the gtx 1070 well actually before we check the numbers from this comparison let's first go back and take a quick look at the numbers from our original June 2016 video back in June we tested 24 games and amongst them are some old favorites that we didn't revisit in this video and that was mostly because there isn't anything new to report anyway what's interesting a note here is that back then the gtx 1070 was 11% far in the fury X at 1440p at the time the big windscreen video came from battlefield 4 rise of the Tomb Raider anno 2205 ARMA 3 Just Cause 3 and interestingly doom of course back then doom was yet to receive its Vulcan support so it was a very different ballgame for AMD with OpenGL where AMD did do well was with hitman using either DirectX 11 or DirectX 12 ashes of the singularity call of duty black ops 3 Batman Arkham Knight and the division okay so now that the old results are fresh in our mind let's move on to see what the updated results have for us the fury acts was overall 10% slower and if we flip that around and work out all the results again we find that the gtx 1070 is also 10% faster so previously it was 11% faster today with newer drivers and some more modern games thrown to the mix it's 10% faster previously the fury axe was 1 percent faster and hitman when comparing the directrix 11 results and by testing AMD using dx12 and a.m. they're using dx11 we get the exact same result Doom is obviously a big turnaround for AMD previously the 1070 was 20% faster with OpenGL now with Vulcan it's 10% slower anyway in spite of that reshuffling the games and everything else we find the margins between the 1070 and fewer X were made much the same also for those wondering I did work out the percentage differences for the minimum frame rate and here the fury X was 12% slower than the 1070 overall not a significant difference and there were just two titles where the fury X struggles more when comparing the minimum frame rate opposed to the average still this seems like good news if you react shoppers providing they can get one at the right price those cards selling for thrown eight dollars on Amazon seem like a decent deal though they are only 14 percent cheaper than the cheapest GTX 10 70 or 20% cheaper than say a typical 1070 but given they are you know we saw 10% slower on average you aren't exactly getting the bargain of the century here so be aware of that the fury X in my opinion looks less impressive when compared to that 360 dollar gigabyte Mini ITX OSI model and down that's a cool little graphics card it's smaller than the fury X and it doesn't have a huge radiator hanging off of so that's a bonus and it also consumes considerably less power the Furious can also be seen struggling at times with that full gigabyte frame buffer 4096 stream processes is a lot and they can certainly efficiently chew through over four gigabytes of buffered data anyway unless you're getting the fury X for $300 or less I probably wouldn't bother with it given how the current graphics card landscape looks so I hope that helps address the furious question many of you have been asking me and if you have any questions or any more questions you know what to do drop them below so that's pretty much all from me on this one I'm your host Steve and I'll catch you next time you