Compute Performance

Shifting gears, we'll look at the compute aspects of the Radeon VII. Though it is fundamentally similar to first generation Vega, there has been an emphasis on improved compute for Vega 20, and we may see it here.

Beginning with CompuBench 2.0, the latest iteration of Kishonti's GPU compute benchmark suite offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on level set segmentation, optical flow modeling, and N-Body physics simulations.

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - Level Set Segmentation 256

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - N-Body Simulation 1024K

Compute: CompuBench 2.0 - Optical Flow

Moving on, we'll also look at single precision floating point performance with FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance.

Compute: Folding @ Home (Single and Double Precision)

Next is Geekbench 4's GPU compute suite. A multi-faceted test suite, Geekbench 4 runs seven different GPU sub-tests, ranging from face detection to FFTs, and then averages out their scores via their geometric mean. As a result Geekbench 4 isn't testing any one workload, but rather is an average of many different basic workloads.

Compute: Geekbench 4 - GPU Compute - Total Score

Lastly, we have SiSoftware Sandra, with general compute benchmarks at different precisions.

Compute: SiSoftware Sandra 2018 - GP Processing (OpenCL)

Compute: SiSoftware Sandra 2018 - GP Processing (DX11)

Compute: SiSoftware Sandra 2018 - Pixel Shader Compute (DX11)

 

Total War: Warhammer II Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

294 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kevin G - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Not a bad showing by AMD but this card isn't the victory that they needed either. The gaming side is OK and lines up with the GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 2080 fairly well. On the compute side it is actually very good with the extra memory capacity and more bandwidth. I have a feeling that this card should have shipped with 128 ROPs which would have given it an edge at higher resolutions.

    I'm also curious as to how this card would fair at even higher resolutions like 5K and 8K. The memory bandwidth is there to humor that idea and might be feasible to get playable frame rates on specific modern games. I'd also be interesting to see how it'd fair with some older, less demanding titles at these resolutions too.
    Reply
  • Holliday75 - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    This card feels like its meant to full the gap and now allow Nvidia to be the only player in the game for an extended period of time. This buys them time for their next architecture release. Reply
  • brokerdavelhr - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Can You please retest running the Radeon VII (an AMD part) on a Ryzen II with X470 with 16 gig of RAM? You always run AMD parts on a non AMD processor. Please retest and post results! Reply
  • mkaibear - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    The point of comparative benchmarking is to change just one thing so you can see the impact of the thing you're changing. Reply
  • brokerdavelhr - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    SO why do they only test on Intel machines? Why not run the same tests on an RYZEN/Nvidia and Ryzen/Radeon combo? My point is that it simply never happens. Put aside the fact that Radeon always fairs better on a AMD machine, it just seems odd is all. For the longest time, nearly every Intel machine ran Nvidia graphics. You are more likely to find a Radeon in a AMD machine than you will an Intel one.
    See my point?
    Reply
  • DominionSeraph - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Even AMD benches their video cards on Intel processors. Intel is just faster. Reply
  • brokerdavelhr - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    What link is that DS - and if you ask me too google it, I will not take anything you say seriously. Or are you deliberately trolling? I know they do a side by side with intel processors with their own to show the diff, bu thats all. What is the link to the tests you are referring to? Either way - it is unbiased as they bench with both. Not so here which was my point. Reply
  • Klimax - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link

    So can you post AMDs PR results that use AMD CPUs? Reply
  • krazyfrog - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link

    From AMD's Radeon VII page:

    "Testing done by AMD performance labs 1/21/19 on an Intel Core i7 7700k, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, Radeon VII, Radeon RX Vega 64, AMD Driver 18.50 and Windows 10. Using Resident Evil 2 @ 3840x2160, Max settings, DirectX® 11:Radeon VII averaged 53 fps. Radeon RX Vega 64 averaged 41 fps. PC manufacturers may vary configurations yielding different results. All scores are an average of 3 runs with the same settings. Performance may vary based on use of latest drivers. RX-291"
    Reply
  • mkaibear - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link

    Because they are for the most part running gaming tests, and if you want to remove CPU bottlenecks you pick the CPU which you have that's fastest in games.

    Which is Intel.

    If you pick anything else then you are artificially constraining performance which tends to show a regression to the mean - in other words it'll make the difference between AMD and nVidia smaller (whichever one wins)

    Equally the fact that AMD works best with AMD means they absolutely should *not* put an AMD processor in the system - that way they are artificially boosting system performance and skewing their benchmarks.

    You really need to do some reading on how you do a/b testing. Wikipedia has a good article.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now