This looks very good price for factory overclocked card. Card length is ~30cm, dual slot and requires 2x 8 pin pcie connectors. From some reviews I've seen boost clock is just short of 1500mhz when overclocked and fan is near silent during load.
Might include Rise of Tomb Rider free game but I can't confirm.
He did, just didn't add the dollar sign for emphasis
For something that performs within 10% of a GTX 980 Ti at resolutions of 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, the Sapphire Fury Tri-X is about as much bang-for-your-buck as you can get right now.
I'd spend the extra 200 for the extra ram and the Nvidia compatibility and drivers.
The Tri-X used HBM VRAM in comparison to the 980ti's GDDR5. VRAM for the 980ti is not a PRO considering the efficiency and horsepower HBM VRAM produces. Given latest drivers and Direct X support, the Fury X trades blows with the 980ti.
For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HF8sI6xJlE
Regardless it is still not enough VRAM to game at 4k despite speed. Better off waiting for HBM2
@ruddiger8: For which card, the 980 Ti or the Fury?
You can see on these benchmarks the 8GB GPUs are actually performing worse than the Fury/Fury X with HBM.
It's certainly no slouch at 4K but even a far more expensive 980 Ti offers a basically unplayable FPS rate at 4K when The Witcher 3 is maxxed out along with other Triple-A titles like Crysis 3.
There's no such thing as a flawless 4K gaming experience on a single GPU right now. 4K gaming is realistically a pipe dream for most unless you've got at a minimum 2 but preferably 3, high-end GPUs driving your display, especially if you're wanting a 120/144hz monitor.
@Amar89: True, I maxed out witcher 3 4k at 45-50fps with my 980tis and still had heaps of oc room but that was 2 gpus. Surprisingly before I got my titan rma'd as a single card it could easily get 45 fps by itself.
I'd spend the extra 200 for the extra ram and the Nvidia compatibility
Yes I remember the excellent "Nvidia compatibility" in Hitman Absolution and Total War: Shogun 2 when GTX 680s/GTX770s got beaten by Radeon 7950s.
It comes down to which OEM bribes which publisher more to use their API and hardware when developing their games. Anyone saying otherwise is just naive.
Mantle & DirectCompute-heavy games like BF4, Thief or Star Wars Battlefront will favour AMD, Gameworks/PhysX-based games like anything running on Unreal 3 will obviously favour Nvidia.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with one side investing more money or resources into R&D to try and maximise performance for every popular game under the sun, just out of competitive spirit.
It's only profitable to do so when those games are massive triple-A blockbusters which will sell like hotcakes and act as advertisements for new GPU lines and gaming engines/rendering technology.
Crimson drivers.. hahahahahaha
Someone seems butthurt because Crimson drivers are not on par with nVidia Drivers.
What is wrong with Crimson drivers?
I'm using 7950's in Crossfire from two different manufacturers playing new and old games and they run really well. Fewer issues now then when I first tried Crossfire on Catalyst drivers.
Probably referring to the early version that caused some setups to lock the fan speed causing some cards to overheat/die.
@bentan77: Possibly they were, but that won't affect anyone buying and using an AMD card now, well I hope not.
AMD have got a lot of flak for their drivers, I want to defend the underdogs here. I ignore that they didn't released many WHQL last year as I used their stable beta drivers regardless and they worked fine.
Also AMD work to improve performance of their older cards more than NVIDIA does. My 7950 originally competed with NVIDIAs 580 cards, but on modern games they can match and occasionally beat the 680 cards.
What is wrong with Crimson drivers?
I've also been running A-Okay on Crimson since v15.12.
Vladdo's probably been reading too much WCCFtech or those other bastions of over-caffeinated, fanboy angst.
@Amar89: No.. not at all.. Having had a 5970 CF, 6970 CF, 7970 CF cards , I recently moved over to nvidia as the lack of 0 day drivers for new release games was quite disgusting. Having AMD release drivers 2-4 weeks after release was the final nail in the coffin. At least when AMD were doing monthly releases, there was some sort of consistency with their drivers, but since then, they've gone downhill very fast. Loving my 2x 980tis with minimal issues.
@Vladdo: 0-Day SLI Profiles are non-existent for NVidia as well. At a minimum it's one week and that's only for big names. Back when I was running SLI, games like Alan Wake took a full year to get an SLI profile. That is no exaggeration.
Both manufacturers barely give a toss about multi-GPU gaming as do a majority of game developers (gotta get that con$ole market); it's not like more regular SLI/CF profile releases would really change things. The primary issues holding back SLI/CF have always been the complete lack of game engine coding for multi-GPU PCs and technology-inherent limitations (AFR & Micro-stuttering as well as congested PCIe lane bandwidth).
@Amar89: Wasn't talking at all about SLI/CF profiles. More that AMD doesn't have 0 day updates for games which have significant performance issues on release.
I just can't fathom why AMD went to all the effort of rolling a turd in glitter (crimson drivers) when I think most people would prefer up to date drivers with current games.
@Vladdo: Well you mentioned you ran CF exclusively.
I still don't get why you're scapegoating AMD for developer laziness and greed.
Of course they have significant performance issues. They're released in Beta or Alpha states.
Batman Arkham Knight ran piss-poorly regardless of what GPU grunt you threw at it.
There was no tweaking or optimising your way out of a completely broken console port.
AMD at least gets credit in my opinion for actually trying to rewrite their driver sets' code periodically to extract more performance out of their entire range. Omega's (v14.12) performance benefits were unlike anything seen in GPU history for the past 8 years. Certain cards literally doubled in performance in certain games.
NVidia takes less gambles so they are more stable but consequently, far more stagnant until they hit the next one hundredth increment in their driver version number.
That being said, I think the gap has been closed to the point where both respective sets of drivers realistically have as many pros and cons as each other. It just seems that AMD's failings always seem to get the spotlight far more easily; whether that's because the underdog is an easier target, deliberate NVidia counter-marketing or because NVidia's market share is bigger, I honestly don't know.
@Vladdo: No I can't ignore the obvious lack of QA and testing in games development today as ridiculous publisher deadlines and demands, constrained development cycles with a console-centric focus and high-pressure, low-risk iteration completely undercuts all notions of vetted quality products, consumer equity and developer integrity. Not to mention a complete disregard for consumer satisfaction and feedback.
Your infantile grasp of this issue is something expected of a guy who likes simplistic, cartoon cut-out answers for all of life's problems.
Yeah sure, AMD is the cause of all of the poorly performing games you've played lately.
Whatever stops you from having too much blood flowing around between your ears; you might lose your balance and get dizzy.
Have you ever stopped to consider that this rash of poorly optimised, unplayable garbage that passes for Triple-A gaming these days actually plays exactly into the hands of NVidia's monopolistic, anti-competitive business model as they get to demonise their sole competitor with carefully slanted journalism, coerce more developers to use their closed-source, proprietary APIs that cost insane amounts to licence and offer up competing products that are specifically engineered to only be a fraction better than the architecture could actually allow, so as to charge maximum dollar for the most incremental of improvements in performance and visual fidelity and spend less and less on innovation (which they barely do these days).
Fanboy idiots who think one side or the other (and I'm not saying AMD wouldn't or hasn't done the same) sincerely have the gaming industry's best interests at heart are bearing IQs on par with the frame rates experienced in Batman Arkham Knight when it launched.
Billions of dollars are at stake in the GPU Industry and gamers actually continue to believe that NVidia and AMD care about the E-Peen "prestige" that comes with getting the highest frames per second in this season's latest graphics-porn endeavour or the fact that little Timmy's expensive birthday present will justify its inflated cost.
That comparison would be to reference versions. This one should should be about 10-15% faster.
that's 11% lower than the cheapest on Static Ice. (note Static Ice is only within Australia)
If i am already paying $1000.- for a video card i would consider getting the water cooled one for $1050.-
Good deal with the free shipping too. Cheapest listed on staticice for this video card is $1080. Remember the prices on staticice don't include shipping but this one in the thread is $940 delivered.
Good price.
I paid $890 for a Gigabyte G1 Gaming edition as part of the end of year 15% off ebay sale.
It's a beast card and can handle any games at 1440p.
Just don't add >$60 worth of more stuff otherwise you'll cop GST as it comes in
Pro tip!
Not to put anyone off, but I bought a new Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro for $688 delivered from Newegg a week before Xmas. Price was good - shipping not so good, didn't arrive until 8th Jan. The card was obviously "open box" when it arrived, so I wasn't that surprised to subsequently discover it was faulty. From what I can gather online, selling open box stuff as brand new is fairly common for Newegg.
Newegg are coping the return shipping for the RMA, but still a pain in the arse if it's as slow to go back as it was to arrive. Not to mention to get an RMA from Australia, you need to wait about 1 hour to speak with someone via live chat - then they arrange someone to call you within 1-3 business days (during US business hours) to offer "tech support", before they'll even issue an RMA…
Ouch! Makes me think twice about giving NewEgg a go
Beauty, thanks, been looking for a second one.
Great review and comparison here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-geforce-gtx-980-ti…
Can I put 2 of these in sli?
Yes, make sure you have a quality power supply; you will probably need 850w upwards.
http://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator
Or
http://powersupplycalculator.net (which doesn't seem to have a 980ti listed)
Yes, just need to make sure you have enough power supply and meet the minimum - http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/sli/system-requir…
Yes, just need to make sure you have all the money in the world.
Does anyone actually have any money to buy this? or spend 1K on a video card?
It's too much for computer hardware for me. That said, I spend more on a new phone each year so it's a matter of personal value. If it was something I wanted I'm sure I could find the money.
I mean its an okay investment if you game everyday, it should last you 3 years minimum and then you can put it in an old rig.
Would it be worth waiting for the new pascal nvidia cards that come out this year instead? Aren't they meant to be a massive leap ahead?
FYI factory overclocks on 9xx cards means exactly nothing, they all auto overclock within their thermal window, so a better cooler will make a bigger difference then a 1-2% factory OC
I bought this card last week from PLE.
Very good card, runs battlefront at 4k very nicely.
Plus the fans don't spin when its not in use. When it is in use, its still very quiet.
Not cheap but recommended.
and you said you were irish? :P
Any good deals on GTX 970's?
Any good deals for cards around $400?
Price in the title please…