Asus r9 fury strix review

ASUS R9 Fury Strix

Al igual que el resto de la serie Strix y Direct CU la presentación está cuidada y son todas muy similares: caja de cartón, logotipo strix y hacen referencia a las características más principales en la parte anterior de la caja.

Una vez abrimos la caja nos encontramos el siguiente bundle:

Tarjeta gráfica Asus R9 Fury Strix.
Manual de instrucciones
CD con drivers.
Cable de alimentación Y dual 8 pines a 6 pines.

La tarjeta mide 30.5 x 15.22 x 3.95 cm y se nota que su peso es bastante alta. Combina muy bien los colores rojo y negro de la seria Republic Of Gamer de la compañía. El procesador viene de fábrica a 1000 Mhz (1020 con turbo), sus 4 GB de memoria son HBM y corren a 500 Mhz, su nueva interfaz es toda potencia con 4096-bit, compatible con OpenGL 4.5, Dx12 y el bus estándar PCI Express 3.0.

Como podemos ver la alimentación es bastante potente e incorpora dos conexiones PCI Express de 8 pines, mientras que en el reverso incorpora un backplate que cubre toda la superficie dejando al aire alguna parte de la circutería y los 4 tornillos para separar la tarjeta del disipador. Como ya he comentado en otras ocasiones el backplate ayuda a la rigidez el PCB, mejora en la refrigeración y porque no… nos agrada a la vista.

En la parte superior tiene una tira de led que ilumina las letras Strix, también vemos que la tarjeta es un poco más alta que el resto que hemos visto. Ya en la segunda foto podéis ver como queda pinchada en una placa Z170.

En las conexiones traseras nos encontramos con:

1 x DVI-I.
3 x DisplayPort.
1x HDMI 2.0.

Banco de pruebas y tests de rendimiento

BANCO DE PRUEBAS
Procesador:	i5-6600k @ 4400 Mhz.
Placa Base:	Asus Maximus VIII Hero
Memoria:	Corsair DDR4 LPX 16GB
Disipador	RL Custom
Disco Duro	Samsung 850 EVO 1Tb
Tarjeta Gráfica	Asus R9 Fury Strix
Fuente de Alimentación	EVGA SuperNova G2 750W 80 Plus Gold.

Para evaluar el rendimiento de la tarjeta gráfica hemos utilizados las siguientes aplicaciones:

3DMark – Fire Strike.
Crysis 3.
Metro Last light.
Tomb Raider.
Battlefield 4.

Todas nuestras pruebas han sido realizadas con una resolución 1920px x 1080px y con filtros 4xAA.

¿Qué estamos buscando en las pruebas?

En primer lugar la mejor calidad de imagen posible. El valor más importante para nosotros es la media de FPS (Fotogramas por segundos), a mayor número de FPS, más fluido será el juego. Para diferenciar un poco la calidad, os dejamos una tabla para valorar la calidad en FPS:

FRAMES POR SEGUNDOS
Frames por Segundos. (FPS)	Jugabilidad
Menos de 30 FPS	Limitada
30 40 FPS	Jugable
40 – 60 FPS	Buena
Mayor de 60 FPS	Bastante Buena o Excelente

No nos engañemos; hay juegos que pueden tener de media de 100 FPS. Puede ser porque el juego es bastante antiguo y no requiere de excesivos recursos gráficos o que la gráfica es la más potente del mercado, o tenemos sistemas GPU de miles de euros. Pero la realidad es otra, y juegos como Crysis 3 y Metro Last Light son muy exigentes y no suelen dar puntuaciones altas.

Conclusion

Particularly at 4K resolution (a setting these high-end cards are essentially designed for, at this point), there isn’t a huge performance gap between Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 980, Asus’ Strix R9 Fury, and the pricier AMD Radeon R9 Fury X and Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti. So, if you’re looking for a card for gaming at those lofty settings, you’ll have to weigh other features.

Exhibit one: The Fury X is a shorter card and should run cooler thanks to its liquid/radiator loop, but you’ll have to deal with mounting that radiator somewhere. Exhibit two: The GeForce GTX 980 is the least expensive of the 4K contenders at this writing, but if PC gaming at 4K and high settings is your aim, you’ll definitely appreciate the extra performance that the three other cards offer. Exhibit three: If you want the absolute best performance, there’s little doubt that the GTX 980 Ti is the way to go—and it is more power-efficient than AMD’s current cards (even though AMD has made gains on that front since the days of the R9 290 and 290X).

But exhibit four, the air-cooled R9 Fury, has its appeal. At about $70 less than the GTX 980 Ti, the Asus Strix R9 Fury gets awfully close to Nvidia’s current GTX 980 Ti flagship, while sticking to traditional air cooling. One X-factor: If you were going to purchase the upcoming Metal Gear Solid title, which comes free at the moment with higher-end Nvidia cards, the value proposition of the Strix R9 Fury is significantly lessened. So which high-end card is best for you depends on a number of variables.

What we can say with certainty is that while the R9 Fury isn’t quite as powerful as the pricier R9 Fury X, its air cooling, lower price (starting at $100 less than the Fury X), and still very good performance make it arguably more appealing for a wider swath of users than the liquid-cooled X version.

We still wish Asus had found a way to make the Strix R9 Fury DC3 shorter—a foot-long is great for a meatball hero, less so for a video card that might need to fit in a midtower case. For those who crave Fury-like performance in a card that can fit in a compact case, stay tuned in the coming weeks for AMD’s R9 Nano. We’re not sure exactly what the price or performance will be for that card, or when it will hit. But considering it’s supposed to be a 6-inch card based around the same Fiji chip in the first two Fury families, it could be a very enticing option for those looking to build a tiny but powerful gaming PC.

Asus Strix R9 Fury DC3

4.0

Editors’ Choice

(Opens in a new window)

Check Stock

$805.98 at Amazon

(Opens in a new window)

MSRP $569.00

Pros

Air-cooled design makes for easier installation.
High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM).
Includes DVI port.
4K performance at high settings is impressive for the price.

Cons

Nearly a foot long, which may be too big for some setups.
No HDMI 2.0 port.

The Bottom Line

Though it’s not quite as fast as its liquid-cooled AMD Fury X counterpart or the more expensive Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti, the Asus Strix R9 Fury DC3’s similar performance at 4K is impressive for the price.

Like What You’re Reading?

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Thanks for signing up!

Your subscription has been confirmed. Keep an eye on your inbox!

Design and Software

As for the Strix R9 Fury DC3 specifically, the card looks very similar to the Strix-branded R9 390X we looked at a few weeks before it. The Strix R9 Fury is 11.8 inches long and 1.6 inches thick. It’s relatively thin, but very long. That length means there’s room for not two but three fans, allowing for quieter, cooler operation. (That is important, given AMD’s general power-efficiency disadvantage versus competing Nvidia cards.)

On this Strix card, Asus adds a metal backplate with the company’s angular owl logo. This might make the card more attractive for those with a windowed case, as well as aid in cooling and help keep the PCB from warping over time under its own weight.

Asus also includes two LEDs atop the two PCI Express power connectors, which light up red when the cables aren’t plugged in, and switch to white when the cables are connected properly. This will be a handy feature for those who often swap out cards (for example, us reviewers). But for most gamers who are likely to install the card only once or twice, it’s not all that hard to physically check to make sure your cables are seated properly.

Under the card’s black, red, and silver shroud hides Asus’ Direct CU III cooler (hence the «DC3» in the card’s full name), with a pair of large 10mm heatpipes that make direct contact with the GPU. Asus claims the pipes transfer 40 percent more heat away from the GPU than reference designs, delivering up to 30 percent cooler performance.

While it’s tough to test those numerical claims with precision, we can say that the card is quiet for a high-end pixel-pusher—especially one that’s based on the same chip as the water-cooled R9 Fury X. (Though, again, remember that the air cooler here on the DC3 makes the card much longer than the R9 Fury X.) Those who prioritize silence and efficiency would be better off opting for a Maxwell-based card based on the GeForce GTX 970 or 980, or AMD’s R9 Fury X, whose liquid-cooling loop keeps fan noise to a minimum.

The selection of ports on the Strix R9 Fury DC3 doesn’t offer any real surprises, but it does include DVI, which was lacking on the stock Fury X. With the Strix card, you get a DVI-D port, three full-size DisplayPorts, and a full-size HDMI…

Like the Fury X, this card lacks an HDMI 2.0 port (the GeForce GTX 980 has HDMI 2.0), which is necessary for 4K playback above 30 frames per second (fps) via HDMI on recent 4K HDTVs. But given this card’s foot-long length, it’s somewhat less likely that users would attempt to shoehorn it into a living-room-friendly compact gaming PC. The upcoming Radeon R9 Nano would be a much better option for that, though that card, too, will reportedly lack HDMI 2.0.

R9 Fury > GTX 980

Fury X had a difficult time with 980 Ti, ultimately failing to lay claim to the super heavyweight title. Dropping down a weight class to the mere heavyweights changes the story. Here, the $549 R9 Fury takes a clear lead over the $499 GTX 980, though there are still cases where Nvidia leads. The R9 Fury has significant leads in Batman: Arkham Origins, Hitman: Absolution, and Shadow of Mordor; meanwhile, GTX 980 leads in Metro: Last Light, as well as claiming quite a few victories at 1080p. Overall, the two GPUs are in a dead heat at 1080p, but the Fury leads by eight percent at 1440p and a convincing 13 percent at 4K. And this time there’s no caveat about 6GB vs. 4GB VRAM.

Considering the pricing, however, it’s not too much of a stretch to point to the GTX 980 Ti as an even faster GPU. It might cost $100 more than the baseline Fury cards, but it’s only $70 more than the Asus Strix Fury. What’s more, that 12 percent increase in GPU cost will deliver on average 11 percent more performance at 4K, 15 percent more at 1440p, and 20 percent better frame rates at 1080p. And that’s before overclocking. In that sense, the story is similar to the earlier Fury X. Speaking of which, the more expensive AMD GPU only ends up outperforming the air cooled Fury by 6–8 percent on average.

Looking at just the minimum frame rates, the lead tends to be quite a bit less. On average, the 980 actually delivers equal or better minimum frame rates to the Fury, which again suggests that further tuning for the Fury drivers would prove beneficial. Unigine Heaven in particular has issues with AMD GPUs right now, but since that’s more of a graphics test than an actual game, we place less stock in those results. Removing Heaven from the averages, we find that the Fury and 980 are essentially tied for minimum FPS.

3DMark (Fire Strike)

We started off our testing with Futuremark’s 2013 version of 3DMark, specifically the suite’s Fire Strike subtest. Fire Strike is a synthetic test designed to measure overall gaming performance potential, and here the bars tell the story…

In the Graphics Subscore, which isolates our testbed’s graphics hardware, the Asus Strix R9 Fury landed less than 6 percent behind the stock R9 Fury X (a card that costs about $70 more) and 15 percent ahead of the GeForce GTX 980 (a card that currently starts at about $480).

While the R9 Fury’s edge over the GeForce GTX 980 here was significant, keep in mind that we tested Nvidia’s stock reference board of the GTX 980. Factory-overclocked Zotac GTX 980 cards can be found on e-tailer sites like Newegg.com for less than the Asus Strix R9 Fury’s $569. Plus, as of this writing, those Nvidia cards ship with a key for the upcoming game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain(Opens in a new window). If you were considering buying that game, the GeForce GTX 980 is arguably a better value—especially if you also care more than passingly about power efficiency.

DirectCU III y Diseño personalizado del PCB

La tarjeta gráfica es el buque insignia de la compañía, gracias a su excelente disipador de tres ventiladores Direct CU III, marco reforzado un PCB personalizado por los propios ingenieros de la marca.

Primeros quiero hablaros del disipador y comentar que incorpora tres ventilador de 90 mm cada uno, que se activan cuando alcanza la temperatura de 64ºC. Es decir se trata de una tarjeta gráfica muy silencioso y semi pasiva (semi fanless). Cuando comienzan a girar empiezan con un 40% y nunca llegan a subir de revoluciones al ser una tarjeta muy bien estudiada.

Cuando separamos el disipador de la tarjeta gráfica nos encontramos con 5 heatpipes de cobres niquelado con un grosor de 10mm y una base de cobre que refrigera el chips R9 Fury pero Asus no se ha complicado la vida y utiliza el mismo diseño para Nvidia como para AMD lo que significa que algunos de los heatpipes no hace su función de disipación.

Como hemos comentado tenemos dos 8 conexiones pines de alimentación pero la gráfica incorpora 12 fases de alimentación con el diseño Super Alloy Power II junto a los mejores componentes del mercado hacen que esta tarjeta gráfica mejore hasta un 50% más la refrigeración respecto al modelo de referencia de AMD y reduzca el Coil Whine o ruido eléctrico en español al mínimo, sin llegar a existir.

El TDP alcanza casi los 300 W, por lo que con una buena fuente de alimentación de 650~750W es suficiente, y si queremos montar un crossfire con 850 ço 1000 w serán suficientes.

Software and Utilities

The GPU Tweak II app that works with Asus’ cards is very slickly designed, and it gives you one-click access to three performance presets (OC mode, Gaming mode, and Silent mode) that variously prioritize performance or silent operation.

The app also allows you to create a custom profile of your own preferred settings. You can also use the GPU Tweak II app to check card details and monitor fan speed, as well as core and memory clocks and voltages.

Like with the Strix R9 390X we tested, Asus offers a year of Xsplit Gamecaster Premium software with the card. The program is designed to ease recording and live-streaming your PC gaming to services such as Twitch. (At this point, both AMD and Nvidia offer free services geared for this purpose.) But the Premium version of Xsplit Gamecaster promises to let you broadcast at 1080p and 60fps «and beyond,» while adding the ability to create custom script plug-ins, mix and preview audio, execute effects such as drawing on the screen (much like sportscasters do), and add transitions.

Plenty of potential buyers won’t care much about the Xsplit software. But for those who do and were considering paying for the premium service, it’s normally priced at $99.95 a year (though there was a 40 percent discount going when we wrote this). So Asus’ inclusion of a license here could make this card substantively more appealing for gamers looking to do serious game broadcasting or recording.

Back for Another Round

We’re running the same collection of tests as in our 980 Ti and Fury X reviews, with the less demanding settings detailed in the (opens in new tab). TL;DR: we turned off the Advanced Graphics settings in Grand Theft Auto V, as well as disabling 4xMSAA at 4K; for The Witcher 3, we’ve disabled HairWorks at all resolutions. The remaining games are run mostly at maximum quality, except for SSAA and a few other items. Batman: Arkham Origins is maxed out with 4xMSAA but no PhysX, Hitman: Absolution runs at Ultra with 4xMSAA, Metro: Last Light maxes out all settings but leaves off SSAA and Advanced PhysX, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor uses the Ultra preset, Tomb Raider runs the Ultimate preset, and Unigine Heaven 4.0 uses Ultra quality with Extreme tessellation. All of the graphics cards have been tested in our standardized Haswell-E testbed:

Maximum PC 2015 GPU Test Bed
CPU	(opens in new tab)
Mobo	(opens in new tab)
GPUs	(opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab)
SSD	(opens in new tab)
HDD	(opens in new tab)
PSU	(opens in new tab)
Memory	(opens in new tab)
Cooler	(opens in new tab)
Case	(opens in new tab)

All of the latest GPUs have been tested with the latest publicly available drivers, AMD Catalyst 15.7 or Nvidia 353.30. The AMD 15.7 drivers are effectively identical to the 15.15 launch drivers for the Fury and 300 series, as well as the 15.6 beta drivers previously used on the 200 series and earlier GPUs, but all AMD GPUs are now using the same drivers. Note also that we are now reporting 97 percentile minimum frame rates, (opens in new tab).

Float Like a Butterfly

Another month hasn’t radically altered the performance ladder in the GPU world, but now AMD has filled the gap between the R9 390X and the R9 Fury X. What’s more, the Asus Strix Fury fills that gap while using substantially less power as an added bonus. The 390X still packs a lot of performance, but peak power use is over 120W higher than the GTX 980, and performance is still lower on average. The Strix Fury dances to a different beat and manages to surpass the GTX 980 while only using 50W more power under load, and slightly less power than the 980 Ti and Titan X. It’s not a better fighter in every discipline, but it packs a punch and helps keep the pressure on Nvidia.

There are still shortcomings with AMD’s Fury line, unfortunately. One area we still haven’t been able to fully explore is overclocking. The Asus Strix Fury managed to run at 1,070MHz core (seven percent overclock) and 1,080MHz HBM (eight percent overclock), but without the ability to tweak voltages, that’s all we can get from most Fiji-based cards right now. Once the utilities are updated, we might be able to improve the situation… or additional voltage may not even help. Nvidia’s Maxwell 2.0 GPUs meanwhile continue to deliver substantial overclocks (20 percent or more over stock clocks) and better power efficiency.

For those backing the green corner, we haven’t seen anything that would convince them to change sides, but short of the second coming that’s almost a given. Those rooting for Team Red, on the other hand, can now point to improved performance and near-parity, which is a welcome change. The fence sitters still need to decide how much they’re willing to spend—or if they even need to spend anything at all. The improved performance from GM200 and Fiji can be substantial, but so is the price, and it’s entirely possible to have a great time gaming on a PC even with lesser hardware. And even 1080p at high quality is generally a superior graphical experience than you’ll get from console gaming. But if you’re looking to run 4K resolutions at maximum quality, most single GPUs will still struggle.

Looking forward to next year, the real change is going to be TSMC’s 16nm FinFET process, not to mention both AMD and Nvidia will be looking at HBM 2.0, which will double the bandwidth and memory capacity of HBM 1.0. After four years, GPUs will finally move on from 28nm, and the combination of 16nm FinFET and HBM 2.0 as the potential to make even today’s best GPUs look rather tame. Windows 10 is launching as well, and by next year we should also have a better idea of what DirectX 12 really means for gaming.

In the meantime, the AMD R9 Fury basically delivers linear price/performance scaling over the GTX 980, which is quite good at the top of the performance ladder. It can handle just about anything you might want to throw at it, up to and including 4K gaming (though generally not at maximum quality). The Fury ends up being nearly as fast as the Fury X for $100 less, making it a slightly better value proposition, and there’s still hope that driver improvements can further increase performance.

Asus, for their part, offers a potent card in the Strix R9 Fury, for those with the budget and a sufficiently large case. It runs quietly and stays cool even under pressure, and Asus has really put a lot of engineering prowess into the design, allowing them to reduce power requirements by about 30W compared to other Fury designs. Is that enough to warrant the $30 price premium over other R9 Fury cards? For some users, certainly, but whatever Fury card you choose will still offer a healthy amount of performance.

Follow Jarred on .

Общая информация

1.Конструктивные требования по теплоотводу (TDP)

275W

75W

Требования по теплоотводу (TDP) — это максимальное количество энергии, которое должна будет рассеять система охлаждения. Более низкое значение TDP также обычно означает меньшее энергопотребление.

2.количество транзисторов

8900 миллионов

3300 миллионов

Более высокое число транзисторов обычно указывает на новый, более мощный процессор.

3.размер полупроводников

28nm

14nm

Меньший размер указывает на более новый процесс создания чипа.

4.версия PCI Express (PCIe)

PCI Express (PCIe) — это высокая скорость стандарта карты расширения, которая используется для подключения компьютера к его периферии. Новые версии поддерживают более высокую пропускную способность и предоставляют более высокую производительность.

5.гарантийный период

Неизвестно. Помогите нам, предложите стоимость. (AMD Radeon R9 Fury)

Неизвестно. Помогите нам, предложите стоимость. (Asus ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 Ti)

Когда продукт находится под гарантией производителя, в случае неисправности, можно получить замену.

6.Имеет воздушно-водяное охлаждение
AMD Radeon R9 Fury

Asus ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Графическая карта использует сочетание воды и воздуха, чтобы снизить ее температуру. Это позволяет ей разгоняться больше, увеличивая производительность.

7.ширина

191mm

241.3mm

Ширина представляет горизонтальный размер продукта. Мы считаем, что меньшая ширина лучше, потому что она обеспечивает легкую маневренность.

8.высота

Неизвестно. Помогите нам, предложите стоимость. (AMD Radeon R9 Fury)

129.5mm

Высота представляет вертикальный размер продукта. Мы считаем меньшую высоту лучше, потому что она обеспечивает легкую маневренность.

В работе

Производительные видеокарты с чипами AMD имеют достаточно высокое фактическое энергопотребление. Это было справедливо для устройств линеек Radeon R9 290/290X и остается актуальным для модернизированных версий адаптеров, появившихся с маркировкой Radeon R9 390/390X. В этом случае эффективность системы охлаждения играет особую роль. Референсные дизайны адаптеров прошлого поколения откровенно не радовали эффективностью и уровнем шума, потому адаптеры с оригинальными кулерами зачастую были предпочтительнее. Повторится ли история на этот раз? Однозначно говорить об этом можно будет после знакомства со стоковыми версиями Radeon R9 390/390X, но судя по конструкции предлагаемой для них СО, вряд ли ситуация будет кардинально отличаться.

Так или иначе, если видеокарта имеет TDP в 275 Вт, то очевидно, что система охлаждения должны быть весьма эффективной, а в идеальном случае еще и максимальной тихой в работе. Посмотрим, как с этим у трехвентиляторной DirectCU II.

Все видеокарты, принадлежащие серии STRIX, имеют приятную особенность – они работают бесшумно при невысокой нагрузке на графический адаптер. Это справедливо как для компактных экономичных видеокарт, так и для весьма прожорливых адаптеров, к которым в полной мере можно отнести и Radeon R9 390. Итак, на открытом стенде в режиме покоя графический процессор прогревался до 45 градусов. В таком состоянии чип работает на частоте 300 МГц, потому крупный радиаторный блок вполне справляется с отводом тепла. Согласно алгоритму регулировки оборотов, в режиме простоя скорость вентиляторов снижается до 25%, в этом случае периодически центральный вентилятор может некоторое время после снижения нагрузки вращаться еще с частотой порядка 500 об/мин.

Куда любопытнее ситуация под нагрузкой. По завершению всех тестовых этапов пиковое значение температуры процессора составило 85 градусов. Вентиляторы запускаются примерно на 65 градусах. Для удерживания указанного максимального значения температуры, скорость вращения вентиляторов повышалась примерно до 1700 об/мин. Конечно, работа системы охлаждения в таком режиме слышна, но в целом уровень шума очень умеренный. Эффективности системы охлаждения достаточно для того, чтобы даже под высокой нагрузкой тактовая частота GPU оставалась на заданном уровне.