The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTSynthetics
As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance. Since Fiji is based on the same GCN 1.2 architecture as Tonga (R9 285), we are not expecting too much new here.
First off we have tessellation performance. As we discussed in greater detail in our look at Fiji’s architecture, AMD has made some tessellation/geometry optimizations in GCN 1.2, and then went above and beyond that for Fiji. As a result tessellation performance on the R9 Fury X is even between than the R9 285 and the R9 290X, improving by about 33% in the case of TessMark. This is the best performing AMD product to date, besting even the R9 295X2. However AMD still won’t quite catch up to NVIDIA for the time being.
As for texture fillrates, the performance here is outstanding, though not unexpected. R9 Fury X has 256 texture units, the most of any single GPU card, and this increased texture fillrate is exactly in line with the theoretical predictions based on the increased number of texture units.
Finally, the 3DMark Vantage pixel fillrate test is not surprising, but it is none the less a solid and important outcome for AMD. Thanks to their delta frame buffer compression technology, they see the same kind of massive pixel fillrate improvements here as we saw on the R9 285 last year, and NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2 series. At this point R9 Fury X’s ROPs are pushing more than 40 billion pixels per second, a better than 2x improvement over the R9 290X despite the identical ROP count, and an important reminder of the potential impact of the combination of compression and HBM’s very high memory bandwidth. AMD’s ROPs are reaching efficiency levels simply not attainable before.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
xxx5x - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
I have high hopes for Nano:- cheaper than Fury X
- WC block for it
- OC-able to Fury X
This would make it one very small singleslot powerhouse.
Refuge - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
I'm excited too, I just hope it doesn't make sourcing an appropriate PSU a nightmare.zodiacfml - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Right. I just hope it doesn't approach the Fury cards in terms of price. I have a gut feeling that it is a significantly cheaper, taking a clue from the exclusion of the Fury branding.Notmyusualid - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Very nice, good effort.But I'll be waiting for the next TSMC node, 16nm?
Lots of nice small cases to put this in though...
Refuge - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
So is this a driver issue mostly? If so, how do you feel about their ability or likely-hood of improving 1440p performance?Ryan Smith - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
At this point it would be a welcome surprise, but a surprise none the less.jagadiesel1 - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link
Ryan - what do you think are some of the issues in AMD getting good drivers out? It seems to be making a significant dent in their GPUs' overall performance.dalewb - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Wow I can't believe I read the entire article - whew, but that was great. I only understood about half of it, but I'm now that much more intelligent (I think). :)LoccOtHaN - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
OMG is a Monster :D I will have it in near future ;-)Now i can see that Drivers needs tweaking -> and we need new Omega for Fury-X, imagine the +30-40% in every game DX11.1 and in Win_X DX12 OMG thats All.... THX for revievv
Refuge - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
That is a little hopeful isn't it? :P