The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X can run Dirt Rally at 12K @60 FPS without breaking a sweat

Mikeha

4K gaming on a single graphic card is impressive, 8K, even more so, but neither have anything on a 12K surround gaming setup. Skeptics would be laughing at this point now, well allow me to add some more merriment to their humor, I am talking about a 12K setup at 60 frames per second constant. I am sure you must think I have lost my marbles by now, but that is exactly what AMD has achieved with their new Fury X GPU. LegitReviews have tried the GPU in a 12K @60fps configuration successfully in the recently released Dirt Rally game.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-fury-x-tested-12k-60fps/#ixzz3dZCeuRja

 

 

rojoArcueid

Nice!

but all i need is a 1080p Video Card in the $200 price range. 12k is not even a thing today, i can only imagine how they would price that evil thing.

Mikeha

A look at Dirt Rally.

booniedog96

Originally posted by rojoArcueid

Nice!

but all i need is a 1080p Video Card in the $200 price range. 12k is not even a thing today, i can only imagine how they would price that evil thing.

MSRP $650.00US

 

PS: it's also a 4GB card (HBM of course)

rojoArcueid

Originally posted by booniedog96

Originally posted by rojoArcueid

Nice!

but all i need is a 1080p Video Card in the $200 price range. 12k is not even a thing today, i can only imagine how they would price that evil thing.

MSRP $650.00US

 

PS: it's also a 4GB card (HBM of course)

Thanks, I usually keep my gaming PC budget at 1K so this card will most likely never be an option for me.

booniedog96

Originally posted by rojoArcueid

Originally posted by booniedog96

Originally posted by rojoArcueid

Nice!

but all i need is a 1080p Video Card in the $200 price range. 12k is not even a thing today, i can only imagine how they would price that evil thing.

MSRP $650.00US

 

PS: it's also a 4GB card (HBM of course)

Thanks, I usually keep my gaming PC budget at 1K so this card will most likely never be an option for me.

The 3xx line from AMD is coming out so nVidia will adjust their line up so if you are looking at the GTX 960 or the R9 380/R7 370 there will be aggressive price competition for that segment.  Or, you can get a GTX 760 or an R9 285/R9 290 pretty cheap used since many people will flock to the new stuff.  Any way you look at it, it's a good time to be a consumer for GPUs right now.

Drevar

You realize that three 4k screens does not = 12k.  Just 8k alone would be 4 4k screens in 2x2.

booniedog96

Originally posted by Drevar
You realize that three 4k screens does not = 12k.  Just 8k alone would be 4 4k screens in 2x2.

This is true, the industry standard for 4k is a higher resolution than the version of 4k on the retail side.  Thank marketing for that because it's easier to remember 4k than 3840x2160 or 2160p or 38x21.

Rzep

If at some point AMD stops bitching about Gameworks and instead clenches its butt cheeks and creates something better I will consider the Fury X. Till then, try harder AMD. Kind of sad what AMD has become, back in the day I was such a Radeon fanboy=)

sacredfool

Originally posted by booniedog96

Originally posted by Drevar
You realize that three 4k screens does not = 12k.  Just 8k alone would be 4 4k screens in 2x2.

This is true, the industry standard for 4k is a higher resolution than the version of 4k on the retail side.  Thank marketing for that because it's easier to remember 4k than 3840x2160 or 2160p or 38x21.

It's not even that. It's just that you can't claim something is "8K" when only setting up the screens wider. If it was that easy, it'd be pretty easy to "achieve" a 100k resolution with the screens being 1 pixel high. 

 

4K 4K

4K 4K == 8K

 

4K 4K 4K == 3 4K monitors side by side.

 

Those "legit reviews" are not very legit. 

booniedog96

Originally posted by sacredfool

Originally posted by booniedog96

Originally posted by Drevar
You realize that three 4k screens does not = 12k.  Just 8k alone would be 4 4k screens in 2x2.

This is true, the industry standard for 4k is a higher resolution than the version of 4k on the retail side.  Thank marketing for that because it's easier to remember 4k than 3840x2160 or 2160p or 38x21.

It's not even that. It's just that you can't claim something is "8K" when only setting up the screens wider. If it was that easy, it'd be pretty easy to "achieve" a 100k resolution with the screens being 1 pixel high. 

 

4K 4K

4K 4K == 8K

 

4K 4K 4K == 3 4K monitors side by side.

 

Those "legit reviews" are not very legit. 

Lol, yea they should have gone with "11,520x2160 with AMD Fury X".

sacredfool

I know right. I personally think that is an amazing headline. Not sure why they opted out of it

booniedog96

Originally posted by Rzep
If at some point AMD stops bitching about Gameworks and instead clenches its butt cheeks and creates something better I will consider the Fury X. Till then, try harder AMD. Kind of sad what AMD has become, back in the day I was such a Radeon fanboy=)

Try harder?!  They just successfully managed to get HBM up and running, Fury X and Fury are just the beginning.  The big hulking towers of today will be like the dinosaurs were to mammals.  We will now start having micro atx maybe even smaller units (nano atx anyone?) with a minimum performance equivalent to a GTX 980 Ti or Titan X.  It's GPU evolution, how does it not get better than that?

 

The top part is the cooling unit, the bottom half is a full blown PC with DUAL Fury X GPUs.

Quizzical

If that's 12K, someone should get three 1366x768 monitors in Eyefinity and declare it 4K gaming--and that he's unimpressed by it because the vertical resolution is so low.

Quizzical

Originally posted by Rzep
If at some point AMD stops bitching about Gameworks and instead clenches its butt cheeks and creates something better I will consider the Fury X. Till then, try harder AMD. Kind of sad what AMD has become, back in the day I was such a Radeon fanboy=)

If AMD really wanted to play hardball with their response, they could write some code that aggressively passes data back and forth between threads and implicitly assumes that blocks of 64 threads are constantly synchronized.  That will work fine on AMD GCN, but produce random junk data on Nvidia.  And then they could pay some developers to use it.

Who benefits from games including code written for the express purpose, not of giving games cool effects, but of sabotaging or breaking performance on another vendor's hardware?  Certainly not gamers.  And it's not something that you ought to encourage.

Hrimnir

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Rzep
If at some point AMD stops bitching about Gameworks and instead clenches its butt cheeks and creates something better I will consider the Fury X. Till then, try harder AMD. Kind of sad what AMD has become, back in the day I was such a Radeon fanboy=)

If AMD really wanted to play hardball with their response, they could write some code that aggressively passes data back and forth between threads and implicitly assumes that blocks of 64 threads are constantly synchronized.  That will work fine on AMD GCN, but produce random junk data on Nvidia.  And then they could pay some developers to use it.

Who benefits from games including code written for the express purpose, not of giving games cool effects, but of sabotaging or breaking performance on another vendor's hardware?  Certainly not gamers.  And it's not something that you ought to encourage.

Have to agree here, the whole gameworks thing is the first time i was ever truly dissapointed in Nvidia as a company.  Rest of the stuff like buying physx and that kind of stuff is just good business.  Gameworks is getting into the territory of the kind of garbage consoles do to force utilization of specific types of hardware, which IMO is predatory business practice and (obviously) not in the consumers best interests.

Nitth

---

Originally posted by Mikeha
4K gaming on a single graphic card is impressive, 8K, even more so, but neither have anything on a 12K surround gaming setup. Skeptics would be laughing at this point now, well allow me to add some more merriment to their humor, I am talking about a 12K setup at 60 frames per second constant. I am sure you must think I have lost my marbles by now, but that is exactly what AMD has achieved with their new Fury X GPU. LegitReviews have tried the GPU in a 12K @60fps configuration successfully in the recently released Dirt Rally game.Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-fury-x-tested-12k-60fps/#ixzz3dZCeuRja
 

---

And i don't even care. Never going to buy another AMD card ever again.

In fact, i would pay more for a card with "less potential" that runs "Good" on all games than an amd card that has peak performance and stability on only a handful of titles.

skeaser

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by Mikeha
4K gaming on a single graphic card is impressive, 8K, even more so, but neither have anything on a 12K surround gaming setup. Skeptics would be laughing at this point now, well allow me to add some more merriment to their humor, I am talking about a 12K setup at 60 frames per second constant. I am sure you must think I have lost my marbles by now, but that is exactly what AMD has achieved with their new Fury X GPU. LegitReviews have tried the GPU in a 12K @60fps configuration successfully in the recently released Dirt Rally game.Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-fury-x-tested-12k-60fps/#ixzz3dZCeuRja
 

---

 

And i don't even care. Never going to buy another AMD card ever again.

In fact, i would pay more for a card with "less potential" that runs "Good" on all games than an amd card that has peak performance and stability on only a handful of titles.

This. All but one build I've ever done has been NVidia. I fell for AMD's cheap performance once and will never buy a single thing from them again. I don't care if they come out with a $2.00 card that holoprojects games with 1:1 hyper-realism and gives happy endings, I won't buy it.

Tamanous

Originally posted by skeaser

 

This. All but one build I've ever done has been NVidia. I fell for AMD's cheap performance once and will never buy a single thing from them again. I don't care if they come out with a $2.00 card that holoprojects games with 1:1 hyper-realism and gives happy endings, I won't buy it.

Shit man, I think I'd fall for that pitch.

JayFiveAlive

The industry needs AMD otherwise nvidia is going to go nuts with their pricing. AMD needs to make quieter cards. The last card I had literally sounded like a jet engine taking off and would hit around 90c temp which was apparently "normal" for that card. No thank you. I hope their new cards do very well.. but yeah this is not 12k resolution lol.

breadm1x

Dont think anyone has benchmarks out for this card yet.

"shown this week by AMD running the game title Dirt Rally"

Just a "Demo" from AMD itself says nothing. its called "News" not "Review"

And no it will not do 60fps with 3x4k screens.

But i did order one to replace my 290x just hope they make full covers for it.

Avanah

I had an AMD card ONCE in the past. Never again.

Just got a GTX970 and love it.

 

Nvidia > AMD...Always and Forever!

laserit

60 frames in a driving game..... mark me down as unimpressed.

 

 

 

 

Classicstar

---

Originally posted by Nitth
Originally posted by Mikeha
4K gaming on a single graphic card is impressive, 8K, even more so, but neither have anything on a 12K surround gaming setup. Skeptics would be laughing at this point now, well allow me to add some more merriment to their humor, I am talking about a 12K setup at 60 frames per second constant. I am sure you must think I have lost my marbles by now, but that is exactly what AMD has achieved with their new Fury X GPU. LegitReviews have tried the GPU in a 12K @60fps configuration successfully in the recently released Dirt Rally game.Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-fury-x-tested-12k-60fps/#ixzz3dZCeuRja
 

And i don't even care. Never going to buy another AMD card ever again.

In fact, i would pay more for a card with "less potential" that runs "Good" on all games than an amd card that has peak performance and stability on only a handful of titles.

---

You have absolutely no clue what your talking about you just copy what all other Nvidia fanboys say sadly.

Heretique

If it was on something more intensive than Dirt Rally I think I might have cared a bit. Kudos anyhow.

Classicstar

Nvidia fans rather buy a lesser card then buy a good AMD CARD i love this so much.

When i go to some skyrim forums or steam forums(last was with TW3)and majority of Nvidia users complain so much how game sucks on there card while AMD users almost have no problems TW3 IS GAMEWORKS how is that for irony.

If you don't belive go to steam forums yourself widness the bad performance many Nvidia had with many games even the gamework games.
Titan X still have problems with Ark:Survival(also Nvidia game) while i have no problems just little less fps but i payed 700 dollars less and 1.5 year old card hehe
Having on so many games NO PROBLEMs at all with AMD 290X(CF is pain i agree butmy single card can luckly run most smooth) so stop the bullshit Nvidia fans :P