AMD's second graphics card based on its 28 nm "Fiji" silicon, the Radeon R9 Fury, will be an important SKU for the company. Ahead of its rumored mid-July launch, TweakTown got a whiff of its specifications from its sources. According to them, AMD will create the R9 Fury by enabling 56 of the 64 compute units on the silicon, yielding 3,584 stream processors. This sets the TMU count at 224. We doubt AMD will tinker with the render back-ends, and so the ROP count could remain at 64. The memory configuration could remain untouched, at 4 GB of 4096-bit HBM.The clocks speeds on the R9 Fury will be the same as the R9 Fury X, at 1050 MHz core, and 500 MHz (512 GB/s) memory. One should expect temperatures of the R9 Fury to be higher, since it's being designed for air-cooled cards, although it's not expected to cross 75°C in typical gaming scenarios. Looking at the 12.5% drop in stream processors, one could expect the performance gap between the two Fury SKUs to be around 10-12%. This makes the R9 Fury a competitor to NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980, if it's priced in its neighborhood (± $50).

51 Comments on AMD Radeon R9 Fury Specifications Leaked

1 to 25 of 51 Go to Page 123 PreviousNext

#1 Aquinus

Resident Wat-man Huh. I wonder if the smaller ratio of shaders and TMUs to ROPs will show as any tangible benefit. I eagerly await a review. :) Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 11:35 Reply

#2 NC37

Old news. What will be more interesting is leaks on the Nano. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 11:55 Reply

#3 Aquinus

Resident Wat-man NC37 Old news. What will be more interesting is leaks on the Nano. I suspect it will be scale down the same way that Fury is scaling down from Fury X. In which case, you may be able to predict Nano's performance from this release once we learn what the specs on Nano are going to be. I suspect it will be scale down the same way that Fury is scaling down from Fury X. In which case, you may be able to predict Nano's performance from this release once we learn what the specs on Nano are going to be. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 11:58 Reply

#4 jigar2speed

Nvidia knows something, i mean their solid inside source at AMD - news are circulating that Nvidia is already prepared to decrease the prices of their cards - this can only mean that either Fury or Fury Nano has excellent price performance ratio and can be disruptive to Nvidia's current pricing strategy. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:00 Reply

#5 RCoon

jigar2speed Nvidia knows something, i mean their solid inside source at AMD - news are circulating that Nvidia is already prepared to decrease the prices of their cards - this can only mean that either Fury or Fury Nano has excellent price performance ratio and can be disruptive to Nvidia's current pricing strategy. Yup, 980ti's dropped substantially in the UK by about £40 in the last ~2 weeks. Yup, 980ti's dropped substantially in the UK by about £40 in the last ~2 weeks. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:13 Reply

#6 Joss

Why is the card so long? Is it only to accommodate the heatsink? then that chip must get hot.

In that case how can the Nano be so small? Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:19 Reply

#7 jigar2speed

Joss Why is the card so long? Is it only to accommodate the heatsink? then that chip must get hot.

In that case how can the Nano be so small? The picture is of 390X The picture is of 390X Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:34 Reply

#8 Xzibit

Joss Why is the card so long? Is it only to accommodate the heatsink? then that chip must get hot.

In that case how can the Nano be so small? Article says around 75C. TweakTown We are being told to expect temperatures of the Fiji PRO-based R9 Fury to be less than 75C Article says around 75C. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:37 Reply

#9 btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator Joss Why is the card so long? Is it only to accommodate the heatsink? There won't be a reference R9 Fury board, so I just used whatever pic from my AMD 300 folder. There won't be a reference R9 Fury board, so I just used whatever pic from my AMD 300 folder. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:41 Reply

#10 jigar2speed

btarunr There won't be a reference R9 Fury board, so I just used whatever pic from my AMD 300 folder. The PCB size should be same as FURY X minus the water cooling system... The PCB size should be same asminus the water cooling system... Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:46 Reply

#11 TheinsanegamerN

Aquinus Huh. I wonder if the smaller ratio of shaders and TMUs to ROPs will show as any tangible benefit. I eagerly await a review. :) If the fury can keep all 64 ROPs like the fury x, but cut down on the shaders, which it cant really keep fed at sub 4k resolution, we should hopefully see a chip that is ~5% slower than the full fury x. Just like the 290 vs 290x.



If they can pull that off, this'll be a card with full fury x performance, but $100 cheaper with lower power consumption. and just like the 290, will be an amazing card with a much more competitive price/performance ratio, along with power consumption closer to nvidia. If the fury can keep all 64 ROPs like the fury x, but cut down on the shaders, which it cant really keep fed at sub 4k resolution, we should hopefully see a chip that is ~5% slower than the full fury x. Just like the 290 vs 290x.If they can pull that off, this'll be a card with full fury x performance, but $100 cheaper with lower power consumption. and just like the 290, will be an amazing card with a much more competitive price/performance ratio, along with power consumption closer to nvidia. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:47 Reply

#12 mirakul

The second best from AMD has been always the best price/performance. Hopefully AMD will keep that tradition. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:58 Reply

#13 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!" So we should expect Nano to have 3072 stream processors but a significantly lower clockspeed so it just outperforms 390X? I just hope they keep the memory at 4 GiB for Nano. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 12:59 Reply

#14 RejZoR

It would be silly not to keep 4GB. R9-290X had 4GB. My ancient HD7950 had 3GB. Nano having the same as so much older HD7950 would be silly and just 2GB would be just plain dumbest thing ever... Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 13:07 Reply

#15 john_

As someone said, old news. A few days old, but that's usually enough to call them old.



As for Fury Nano is the FULL chip. Not a cut down version. It is mentioned in the Fury X review of Anandtech as confirmed info directly from AMD. Just lower GPU speed. 800MHz maybe? Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 13:16 Reply

#16 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"





What's to stop people from putting a water cooler on Nano and overclocking it to Fury X specs then? If the chip weren't cut down, the clockspeed would have to be about 60% of Fury X to be close to 390X. 4096?What's to stop people from putting a water cooler on Nano and overclocking it to Fury X specs then? If the chip weren't cut down, the clockspeed would have to be about 60% of Fury X to be close to 390X. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 13:23 Reply

#17 Lionheart

I'm actually more interested in this card compared to the Fury X if price to performance ratio is great! :toast: Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 14:08 Reply

#18 AsRock

TPU addict For leaked details it don't sound to sure. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 14:12 Reply

#19 RejZoR

FordGT90Concept 4096?





What's to stop people from putting a water cooler on Nano and overclocking it to Fury X specs then? If the chip weren't cut down, the clockspeed would have to be about 60% of Fury X to be close to 390X. Stupid AMD has to intentionally wait with the R9 Nano. I was interested since I have a tiny case and such card would be great. Instead I had to refabricate half of my case to fit in gigantic Strix GTX 980. If the released all 3 Fury card in the same day, I'd get one. They fucked it themselves. Starting to like the NVIDIA anyway. Hopefully they'll keep the Nano in the upcoming lineups (Arctic Islands etc)... Stupid AMD has to intentionally wait with the R9 Nano. I was interested since I have a tiny case and such card would be great. Instead I had to refabricate half of my case to fit in gigantic Strix GTX 980. If the released all 3 Fury card in the same day, I'd get one. They fucked it themselves. Starting to like the NVIDIA anyway. Hopefully they'll keep the Nano in the upcoming lineups (Arctic Islands etc)... Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 14:44 Reply

#20 AsRock

TPU addict Yeah i be a little annoyed if i was in the market for a new card, the one that caught my eye was the nano how ever pointless buying in to more 28nm anyways.



Knowing now big changes are possibly coming next year just sounds bad to buy in any of them including nVidia's range. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 14:51 Reply

#21 1d10t

Came here for this.

Don't like Fury X prices tho,and that silly braided tube or hose or whatever they named it.

Just hope performance gap not wide from R9 Fury X (just like 290 to 290X ),and price a little lower than 980. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 15:01 Reply

#22 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!" RejZoR Stupid AMD has to intentionally wait with the R9 Nano. I was interested since I have a tiny case and such card would be great. Instead I had to refabricate half of my case to fit in gigantic Strix GTX 980. If the released all 3 Fury card in the same day, I'd get one. They fucked it themselves. Starting to like the NVIDIA anyway. Hopefully they'll keep the Nano in the upcoming lineups (Arctic Islands etc)... They always debut top end cards first binning chips that can't work in it and debut the lesser cards later when the chips become available. Because Nano is last makes me strongly believe they're cut down from Fury just as Fury is cut down from Fury X.



I expect Fury in July or early August; Nano in late August or September. They always debut top end cards first binning chips that can't work in it and debut the lesser cards later when the chips become available. Because Nano is last makes me strongly believe they're cut down from Fury just as Fury is cut down from Fury X.I expect Fury in July or early August; Nano in late August or September. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 15:23 Reply

#23 jboydgolfer

I HOPE that isn't a Real image of the new Card......It wouldn't be too reassuring, if they didn't even get the "RADEON" logo affixed in the correct orientation. Assuming of course that they would WANT the buyers to see Radeon upright, and NOT Upside down, when the card was installed. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 15:30 Reply

#24 mirakul

jboydgolfer I HOPE that isn't a Real image of the new Card......It wouldn't be too reassuring, if they didn't even get the "RADEON" logo affixed in the correct orientation. Assuming of course that they would WANT the buyers to see Radeon upright, and NOT Upside down, when the card was installed. The picture was rendered. There is no ref design Fury. The picture was rendered. There is no ref design Fury. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 16:21 Reply

#25 anubis44

RejZoR It would be silly not to keep 4GB. R9-290X had 4GB. My ancient HD7950 had 3GB. Nano having the same as so much older HD7950 would be silly and just 2GB would be just plain dumbest thing ever... They have to keep the full 4GB, because HBM1 only comes in a configuration for 4GB. HBM2 will allow for 8GB. They have to keep the full 4GB, because HBM1 only comes in a configuration for 4GB. HBM2 will allow for 8GB. Posted on Jul 6th 2015, 16:26 Reply