Final Words

While there are definitely more areas to investigate, what we've seen of the Radeon VII is still the first 7nm gaming GPU, and that is no small feat. But beyond that, bringing it to consumers allows a mid-generation option for buyers; and the more enthusiast-grade choices, the merrier. The Radeon VII may be a dual-use prosumer/gaming product at heart, but it still has to measure up to being the fastest gaming card of the Radeon stack.

At the risk of being redundant, I can’t help but emphasize how surprised both Ryan and I are that this card is even here at this time. We’re still very early into the 7nm generation, and prior to last month, AMD seemed content to limit the Vega 20 GPU to their server-grade Radeon Instinct cards. Instead a confluence of factors has come into place to allow AMD to bring a chip that, by their own admission was originally built for servers, to the consumer market as a mid-generation kicker. There isn’t really a good precedent for the Radeon VII and its launch, and this makes things quite interesting from tech enthusiast point of view.

Kicking off our wrap-up then, let's talk about the performance numbers. Against its primary competition, the GeForce RTX 2080, the Radeon VII ends up 5-6% behind in our benchmark suite. Unfortunately the only games that it takes the lead are in Far Cry 5 and Battlefield 1, so the Radeon VII doesn't get to ‘trade blows’ as much as I'm sure AMD would have liked to see. Meanwhile, not unlike the RTX 2080 it competes with, AMD isn't looking to push the envelope on price-to-performance ratios here, so the Radeon VII isn't undercutting the pricing of the 2080 in any way. This is a perfectly reasonable choice for AMD to make given the state of the current market, but it does mean that when the card underperforms, there's no pricing advantage to help pick it back up.

Comparing the performance uplift over the original RX Vega 64 puts Radeon VII in a better light, if not a bit of a surprising one. By the numbers, the latest Radeon flagship is around 24% faster at 1440p and 32% faster at 4K than its predecessor. So despite an interesting core configuration that sees the Radeon VII ship with fewer CUs than the RX Vega 64, the Radeon VII pulls well ahead. Reference-to-reference, this might even be grounds for an upgrade rather than a side-grade.

All told, AMD came into this launch facing an uphill battle, both in terms of technology and product positioning. And the results for AMD are mixed. While it's extremely difficult to extract the benefits of 16GB of VRAM in today's games, I'm not ready to write it off as unimportant quite yet; video card VRAM capacities haven't changed much in the last two and a half years, and perhaps it's time it should. However at this moment, AMD's extra VRAM isn't going to do much for gamers.

Content creation, on the other hand, is a more interesting story. Unlike games there is no standard workload here, so I can only speak in extremely broad strokes. The Radeon VII is a fast card with 16GB of VRAM; it's a card that has no parallel in the market. So for prosumers or other professional vizualization users looking to work on the cheap, if you have a workload that really does need more than the 8 to 11 gigabytes of VRAM found in similarly priced cards, then the Radeon VII at least warrants a bit of research. At which point we get into the merits of professional support, AMD's pro drivers, and what AMD will undoubtedly present to pro users down the line in a Radeon Pro-grade Vega 20 card.

As for AMD's technology challenges, the upside for the company is that the Radeon VII is definitely Vega improved. The downside for AMD is that the Radeon VII is still Vega. I won't harp too much on ray tracing here, or other gaming matters, because I'm not sure there's anything meaningful to say that we haven't said in our GeForce reviews. But at a broad level, Vega 20 introduces plenty of small, neat additions to the Vega architecture, even if they aren't really for consumers.

The bigger concern here is that AMD's strategy for configuring their cards hasn't really changed versus the RX Vega 64: AMD is still chasing performance above all else. This makes a great deal of sense given AMD's position, but it also means that the Radeon VII doesn't really try to address some of its predecessor's shortcomings, particularly against the competition. The Radeon VII has its allures, but power efficiency isn’t one of them.

Overall then, the Radeon VII puts its best foot forward when it offers itself as a high-VRAM prosumer card for gaming content creators. And at its $699 price point, that's not a bad place to occupy. However for pure gamers, it's a little too difficult to suggest this card instead of NVIDIA's better performing GeForce RTX 2080.

So where does this leave AMD? Fortunately for the Radeon rebels, their situation is improved even if the overall competitive landscape hasn’t been significantly changed. It's not a win for AMD, but being able to compete with NVIDIA at this level means just that: AMD is still competitive. They can compete on performance, and thanks to Vega 20 they have a new slew of compute features to work with. It's going to win AMD business today, and it's going to help prepare AMD for tomorrow for the next phase that is Navi. It's still an uphill battle, but with Radeon VII and Vega 20, AMD is now one more step up that hill.

Power, Temperature, and Noise
Comments Locked

289 Comments

View All Comments

  • zodiacfml - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    The first part of your conclusion describes what this product is. It is surprising to see this card's existence at 7nm, a Vega with 16GB of HBM2.
    It appears to me that AMD/TSMC is learning the 7nm process for GPUs/CPUs and the few chips they produce be sold as a high end part (as the volume/yields is being improved).
    AMD really shot high with its power consumption (clocks) and memory to reach the pricing of the GTX 2080.

    However, I haven't seen a publisher to show undervolting results. Most Vegas perform better with this tweak.
  • Samus - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    I think you are being a little too critical of this card. Considering it’s an older architecture, it’s impressive it’s in the 2080’s ballpark.

    And for those like me that only care about Frostbite Engin based games, this card is obviously a better option between the two cards at the same price.

    You also ignored the overclockong potential of the headroom given by moving to 7nm
  • D. Lister - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    "You also ignored the overclockong potential of the headroom given by moving to 7nm"

    Unfortunately it seems to be already overclocked to the max on the core. VRAM has some headroom but another couple of hundred MHz isn't going to do wonders considering the already exorbitant amount available.
  • D. Lister - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    *...considering the already exorbitant amount [of bandwidth] available.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    "I think you are being a little too critical of this card."

    Unless someone can take advantage of the non-gaming aspects of it, it is dead in the water at the current price point. There is zero reason to purchase a card, for gaming only, that uses more power and creates vastly more noise at the same price point of one that is much more efficient for gaming purposes. And, the only way to tame the noise problem is to either massively undervolt it or give it water. Proponents of this GPU are going to have to show that it's possible to buy a 3 slot model and massively undervolt it to get noise under control with air. Otherwise, the claim is vaporware.

    Remember this information? Fiji: 596 mm2 for $650. Vega 10 495 mm2 for $500. Vega 20 331 mm2 for $700.

    Yes, the 16 GB of RAM costs AMD money but it's irrelevant for gaming. AMD not only gave the community nearly 600 mm2 of chip it paired it with an AIO to tame the noise. All the talk from Su about improving AMD's margins seems to be something that gamers need to stop lauding AMD about and starting thinking critically about. If a company only has an inferior product to offer and wants to improve margins that's going to require that buyers be particularly foolish.
  • Samus - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link

    I wouldn't call the 16GB irrelevant. It trumps the 2080 in the two most demanding 4K titles, and comes relatively close in other ultra high resolution benchmarks.

    It could be assumed that's a sign of things to come as resolutions continue to increase.
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link

    "It could be assumed that's a sign of things to come as resolutions continue to increase."

    Developers adapt to Nvidia, not to AMD. That appears to be why, for instance, the visuals in Witcher 3 were watered-down at the last minute — to fit the VRAM of the then standard 970. Particularly in the context of VRAMgate there was an incentive on the part of Nvidia to be certain that the 970's VRAM would be able to handle a game like that one.

    AMD could switch all of its discreet cards to 32 GB tomorrow and no developers would bite unless AMD pays them to, which means a paucity of usefulness of that 32 GB.
  • BenSkywalker - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    This offering is truly a milestone in engineering.

    The Radeon VII has none of the RTX or tensor cores of the competition, uses markedly more power *and* is built with a half node process advantage and still, inexplicably, is slower than their direct competitor?

    I've gone back and looked, I can't find another example that's close to this.

    Either TSMC has *massive* problems with 7 nm or AMD has redefined terrible engineering in this segment. One of those, at least, has to be at play here.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    The RTX and Tensor die area may help with power dissipation when it's shut down, in terms of hot spot reduction for instance. Vega 20 is only 331 mm2. However, it does seem clear enough that Fiji/Vega is only to be considered a gaming-centric architecture in the context of developers creating engines that take advantage of it, à la DOOM.

    Since developers don't have an incentive to do that (even DOOM's engine is apparently a one-off), here we are with what looks like a card designed for compute and given to gamers as an expensive and excessively loud afterthought.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link

    There is also the issue of blasting clocks to compensate for the small die. Rip out all of the irrelevant bits and add more gaming hardware. Drop the VRAM to 8 GB. Make a few small tweaks to improve efficiency rather than just shrink Vega. With those things done I wonder how much better the efficiency/performance would be.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now