Compute Performance

Moving on from our look at gaming performance, we have our customary look at compute performance. Since compute performance is by definition shader bound, the 7950 is at a bit of a disadvantage here compared to gaming performance. Whereas ROP performance scales with the core clock, shader performance is hit by both the reduction in the core clock and the disabled CU array.

Our first compute benchmark comes from Civilization V, which uses DirectCompute to decompress textures on the fly. Civ V includes a sub-benchmark that exclusively tests the speed of their texture decompression algorithm by repeatedly decompressing the textures required for one of the game’s leader scenes. Note that this is a DX11 DirectCompute benchmark.

AMD’s greatly improved compute performance continues to shine here, though in the case of Civilization V it’s largely consumed by just closing the previously large gap between the GTX 500 series and the Radeon HD 6000 series. As a result the 7950 falls ever so short of the GTX 580, while the factory overclocked Sapphire and XFX cards give the 7950 enough of a push to come within 5% of the 7970.

Our next benchmark is SmallLuxGPU, the GPU ray tracing branch of the open source LuxRender renderer. We’re now using a development build from the version 2.0 branch, and we’ve moved on to a more complex scene that hopefully will provide a greater challenge to our GPUs.

Under SmallLuxGPU the 7970 enjoyed a large lead over the GTX 580, and this continues with the 7950. Even though the 7950 is well behind the 7970—to the tune of 24%—it’s still 33% ahead of the GTX 580 and the lead only grows from there. Meanwhile the XFX and Sapphire cards can catch up to the 7970 somewhat, but as this is truly a shader-bound test, you can’t make up for the lack of shaders units on the 7950.

For our next benchmark we’re looking at AESEncryptDecrypt, an OpenCL AES encryption routine that AES encrypts/decrypts an 8K x 8K pixel square image file. The results of this benchmark are the average time to encrypt the image over a number of iterations of the AES cypher.

In spite of being a compute benchmark, AESEncryptDecrypt is not particularly sensitive to GPU performance, showcasing the impact that setup times can have. The 7950 trails the 7970 by 10%, and overclocking doesn’t change this much. Unfortunately for AMD NVIDIA is still the leader here, showing that AMD’s compute performance still has room to grow.

Finally, our last benchmark is once again looking at compute shader performance, this time through the Fluid simulation sample in the DirectX SDK. This program simulates the motion and interactions of a 16k particle fluid using a compute shader, with a choice of several different algorithms. In this case we’re using an (O)n^2 nearest neighbor method that is optimized by using shared memory to cache data.

With the compute shader fluid simulation we once again shift back into a compute task that’s much more shader-bound. The 7950 only reaches 80% of the performance of the 7970, once more proving the real impact of losing a CU array. This is still enough to handily surpass the GTX 580 however, with the 7950 taking a 15% lead.

Civilization V Power, Temperature, & Noise
Comments Locked

259 Comments

View All Comments

  • mczak - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    page 4 states that the clocks of the OC 7950 are the same as the shipping clocks of the 7970 (so the cards only differ by the shader units) which isn't true as the reference core clock of the 7970 is 925Mhz, not 900Mhz.
    Now that's only a 3% difference but given the performance difference from those OC 7950 to 7970 often ends up only being ~5% this definitely is significant.
  • carage - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    When will the actual cards be available for sale?
    I've just checked Newegg, Tiger Direct, Micro Center, Fry's, and Amazon, none of them have the 7950 listed.
  • antef - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    I feel like I'll be waiting forever for a $250 28 nm part (whatever that may be...)
  • casteve - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the review. Looking at the Sapphire card, it's a 30%+ speed bump over the 6950 for just 13 watts more power. I look forward to the 78xx and the GTX 6xx this spring and more reasonably priced mid-ranged gaming cards.
  • Articuno - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    That's why the 7950 is so absurdly expensive. The 5850 was miles ahead of anything nVidia had when it launched, and remained miles ahead throughout the entire first Fermi generation, yet it was launched at a very affordable and acceptable $259 price point.
  • Despoiler - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    I'm not sure what kind of fantasy land you are living in, but the 7950 beats the 580 in everything. It's priced at $450, which ~$17 is cheaper than tier 3 PNY 580 cards. Most 580 cards sit around $500. Why should AMD price the 7950 at $250 and make zero or likely lose money? AMD has better cards. They are actually charging what they should be charging. It was a complete blunder to launch the 5850 and 5870 cards at the prices they did. The only saving grace is they likely converted a lot of Nvidia buyers. The 5850 was my first AMD card and I'm not likely to go back to Nvidia with my bad experiences with their card makers.
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    Is it true that you did not update the BIOS on the XFX card as per emailed instructions from AMD? According to Hardwarecanucks.com retail versions of the card have an updated BIOS that review samples sent out did not.
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    We're using the latest BIOS from XFX, 015.013.000.010.000705.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/5476/XFX.gif
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    Thanks. It looks like the XFX is just too damn loud, I'm finding their stuff is quite sub par lately.
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link

    Page 3 of this thread, no BIOS version is given however.
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...

    "Basically, XFX emailed all media days before launch stating that their retail cards had revised fan speed profiles that allowed for slightly increased temperatures but kept the fans MUCH quieter. They sent us all a the retail BIOS file with the proper speeds. What you see above are the differences between the beta and the final release BIOS"

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now