The AMD Radeon VII Review: An Unexpected Shot At The High-End
by Nate Oh on February 7, 2019 9:00 AM ESTWolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Vulkan)
id Software is popularly known for a few games involving shooting stuff until it dies, just with different 'stuff' for each one: Nazis, demons, or other players while scorning the laws of physics. Wolfenstein II is the latest of the first, the sequel of a modern reboot series developed by MachineGames and built on id Tech 6. While the tone is significantly less pulpy nowadays, the game is still a frenetic FPS at heart, succeeding DOOM as a modern Vulkan flagship title and arriving as a pure Vullkan implementation rather than the originally OpenGL DOOM.
Featuring a Nazi-occupied America of 1961, Wolfenstein II is lushly designed yet not oppressively intensive on the hardware, something that goes well with its pace of action that emerge suddenly from a level design flush with alternate historical details.
The highest quality preset, "Mein leben!", was used. Wolfenstein II also features Vega-centric GPU Culling and Rapid Packed Math, as well as Radeon-centric Deferred Rendering; in accordance with the preset, neither GPU Culling nor Deferred Rendering was enabled.
We've known that Wolfenstein II enjoys its framebuffer, and to explain the obvious outlier first the Fury X's 4GB HBM1 simply isn't enough for smooth gameplay. The resulting performance is better conveyed by 99th percentile framerates, and even at 1080p the amount of stuttering renders the game unplayable.
Returning to the rest of the cards, Wolfenstein II's penchant for current-generation architectures (i.e. Turing, Vega) is again on display. Here, the Pascal-based GTX 1080 Ti FE isn't in the running for best-in-class, with the RTX 2080 taking pole and Radeon VII in a close second. Once again, the raw lead in average frametimes grows at lower resolutions, indicating that the Radeon VII is indeed a few shades slower than the reference RTX 2080, but judging from 99th percentile data the real-world difference is close to nil.
Compared to the RX Vega 64, the performance uplift is exactly 24% at 4K and 25% at 1440p, an amusing coincidence given the guidance of 25% given earlier.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
289 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
It's going to be hillariously funny if Ryzen 3000 series reverses this accepted norm. :)mkaibear - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
I'd not be surprised - given anandtech's love for AMD (take a look at the "best gaming CPUs" article released today...)Not really "hilariously funny", though. More "logical and methodical"
thesavvymage - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
It's not like itll perform any better though... Intel still has generally better gaming performance. There's no reason to artificially hamstring the card, as it introduces a CPU bottleneckbrokerdavelhr - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
Once again - in gaming for the most part....try again with other apps and their is a marked difference. Many of which are in AMD's favor. try again.....jordanclock - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
In every scenario that is worth testing a VIDEO CARD, Intel CPUs offer the best performance.ballsystemlord - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
There choice of processor is kind of strange. An 8-core Intel on *plain* 14nm, now 2! years old, with rather low clocks at 4.3Ghz, is not ideal for a gaming setup. I would have used a 9900K or 2700X personally[1].For a content creator I'd be using a Threadripper or similar.
Re-testing would be an undertaking for AT though. Probably too much to ask. Maybe next time they'll choose some saner processor.
[1] 9900K is 4.7Ghz all cores. The 2700X runs at 4.0Ghz turbo, so you'd loose frequency, but then you could use faster RAM.
For citations see:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/p...
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/12625/2nd%20Gen%...
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13400/9thGenTurb...
ToTTenTranz - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
Page 3 table:- The MI50 uses a Vega 20, not a Vega 10.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
Thanks!FreckledTrout - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
I wonder why this card absolutely dominates in the "LuxMark 3.1 - LuxBall and Hotel" HDR test? Its pulling in numbers 1.7x higher than the RTX 2080 on that test. That's a funky outlier.Targon - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
How much video memory is used? That is the key. Since many games and benchmarks are set up to test with a fairly low amount of video memory being needed(so those 3GB 1050 cards can run the test), what happens when you try to load 10-15GB into video memory for rendering? Cards with 8GB and under(the majority) will suddenly look a lot slower in comparison.