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
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Just to add, if there are any ideas of keeping you guys better informed, please fire away. In the meantime, Twitter is probably the best way to stay updated on whatever each one of us is doing :)chizow - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
I think a pipeline story would've been good there, I mean using social media to convey the message to readership that may not even pay attention to it (I don't even think twitter sidebar shows on my iPhone 6 plus) is not a great way to do things.A few words saying the review would be late for XYZ reasons with a teaser to the effect of "but you can see the results here at 2015 AT Bench" would've sufficed for most and also given assurance the bulk of testing and work was done, and that AT wasn't just late for XYZ reasons.
Refuge - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
I've never tweeted in my life.Yet I saw 4 seperate times last week where it was mentioned that Ryan was sick, and the Fury X review was coming as soon as he felt better.
chizow - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Where did you read this news though? Some forum thread? Twitter sidebar? I mean I guess whne everyone is looking for a front page story for the review, something in the actual front page content might have been the best way to get the message across. Even something as simple as a link to the bench results would've gone a long way to help educate/inform prospective buyers in a timely manner, don't you think? Because at the end of the day, that's what these reviews are meant for, right?Ian Cutress - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Twitter sidebar, the first line in the review that ended on the front page on the day of launch and in the comments for every review since launch day.testbug00 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Not everyone reads comments, and, the twitter feed is not viewable on my Six Plus. And likely not for anyone viewing on a phone and some tablets.chizow - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Yeah, all non-ideal for anyone actually looking for the review, those just make it seem more like AT was trying to hide the fact their Fury X review wasn't ready despite there being no reason and a legitimate reason for it.Again, even a pipeline story with Ryan being sick and a link to the bench results would've been tons better in informing AT's readership, but I guess we'll be sure to comb through half conversations and completely unrelated comments in the future to stay informed.
Digidi - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
Thank you for the good Review. The only thing which i'm missing is a synthetic Benchmark of the polygon outpout rate. Because this seams to be the bottleneck of Fury XRyan Smith - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link
We do have TessMark results in the synthetics section. You would be hard pressed to hit the polygon limit without using tessellation to generate those polygons.Digidi - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link
Thank you Ryan for the reply.I don't understand the difference between Tesselation and Polygonoutput. I thought there are 2 ways of polyogon Output.
1. is tesselation where the gpu integrates smaller triangles into a big triangle
2. I thought Polygonoutput is the rate of triangles which the gpu can handle when they get it from the cpu.