The AMD Radeon VII Review: An Unexpected Shot At The High-End
by Nate Oh on February 7, 2019 9:00 AM ESTRadeon VII & Radeon RX Vega 64 Clock-for-Clock Performance
With the variety of changes from the Vega 10 powered RX Vega 64 to the new Radeon VII and its Vega 20 GPU, we wanted to take a look at performance and compute while controlling for clockspeeds. In this way, we can peek at any substantial improvements or differences in pseudo-IPC. There's a couple caveats here; obviously, because the RX Vega 64 has 64 CUs while the Radeon VII has only 60 CUs, the comparison is already not exact. The other thing is that "IPC" is not the exact metric measured here, but more so how much graphics/compute work is done per clock cycle and how that might translate to performance. Isoclock GPU comparisons tend to be less useful when comparing across generations and architectures, as like in Vega designers often design to add pipeline stages to enable higher clockspeeds, but at the cost of reducing work done per cycle and usually also increasing latency.
For our purposes, the incremental nature of 2nd generation Vega allays some of those concerns, though unfortunately, Wattman was unable to downclock memory at this time, so we couldn't get a set of datapoints for when both cards are configured for comparable memory bandwidth. While the Vega GPU boost mechanics means there's not a static pinned clockspeed, both cards were set to 1500MHz, and both fluctuated from 1490 to 1500MHZ depending on workload. All combined, this means that these results should be taken as approximations and lacking granularity, but are useful in spotting significant increases or decreases. This also means that interpreting the results is trickier, but at a high level, if the Radeon VII outperforms the RX Vega 64 at a given non-memory bound workload, then we can assume meaningful 'work per cycle' enhancements relatively decoupled from CU count.
As mentioned above, we were not able to control for the doubled memory bandwidth. But in terms of gaming, the only unexpected result is with GTA V. As an outlier, it's less likely to be an indication of increased gaming 'work per cycle,' and more likely to be related to driver optimization and memory bandwidth increases. GTA V has historically been a title where AMD hardware don't reach the expected level of performance, so regardless there's been room for driver improvement.
SPECviewperf is a slightly different story, though.
289 Comments
View All Comments
eddman - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
What does that have to do with anything? No console game, ever, could be installed on a PC.Current consoles having x86 processors means absolutely nothing. Consoles are defined by their platform, not processors.
It'd be like complaining about switch (which you deem a real console) not being able to install android games; or complain they switch games can't be installed on android phones.
Korguz - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
1) wheres the proof ?? links to this perhaps ?2) again.. where is the proof ?? considering they are also DirectX based.. that should make porting them to the comp.. a little easier..... so, not splintering anything....
the same can be said about cpus and gpus.
Oxford Guy - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
The proof is that PS and MS "console" games won't install and run in Windows nor in Linux.Korguz - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
sorry man.. but thats not proof.... thats just differences in the programming of the games..D. Lister - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
@Korguz:You actually believe developers make seperate versions for every platform? Wow.
Korguz - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
never said that... while the core of the game could be the same.. the underlying software that allows the games to be run, is different.. as Eddman said.. no console game can be run on a comp, and vice versa... i know i can't take any of the console games i have in install them on my comp.. cant even read the disc.. same goes for a comp game on a console... just wont read it...D lister.. are you able to do this some how ? ( and i dont mean by use of an emulator, either )
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - link
You're hopeless with logic.Korguz - Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - link
oxford guy.. d.lister, or me? and how so ?DracoDan - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
I think you're missing a digit on the Radeon Instinct MI50 launch price... only $999?Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
Forgot to scrub a cell when cleaning out a table. At the moment there isn't an official price for the card.