Synthetics

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.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

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.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Texel Fill

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.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill

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.

Grand Theft Auto V Compute
POST A COMMENT

458 Comments

View All Comments

  • bennyg - Saturday, July 4, 2015 - link

    Marketing performance. Exactly.

    Except efficiency was not good enough across the generations of 28nm GCN in an era where efficiency + thermal/power limits constrain performance, and look what Nvidia did over a similar era from Fermi (which was at market when GCN 1.0 was released) to Kepler to Maxwell. Plus efficiency is kind of the ultimate marketing buzzword in all areas of tech and not having any ability to mention it (plus having generally inferor products) hamstrung their marketing all along
    Reply
  • xenol - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    Efficiency is important because of three things:

    1. If your TDP is through the rough, you'll have issues with your cooling setup. Any time you introduce a bigger cooling setup because your cards run that hot, you're going to be mocked for it and people are going to be weary of it. With 22nm or 20nm nowhere in sight for GPUs, efficiency had to be a priority, otherwise you're going to ship cards that take up three slots or ship with water coolers.

    2. You also can't just play to the desktop market. Laptops are still the preferred computing platform and even if people are going for a desktop, AIOs are looking much more appealing than a monitor/tower combo. So you want to have any shot in either market, you have to build an efficient chip. And you have to convince people they "need" this chip, because Intel's iGPUs do what most people want just fine anyway.

    3. Businesses and such with "always on" computers would like it if their computers ate less power. Even if you can save a handful of watts, multiplying that by thousands and they add up to an appreciable amount of savings.
    Reply
  • xenol - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link

    (Also by "computing platform" I mean the platform people choose when they want a computer) Reply
  • medi03 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    ATI is the reason both Microsoft and Sony use AMDs APUs to power their consoles.
    It might be the reason why APUs even exist.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    That was then, this is now. Now, AMD together with the acquisition, has a lower market cap than Nvidia. Reply
  • Murloc - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    yeah, no. Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    ATI wasn't bigger, AMD just paid a preposterous and entirely unrealistic amount of money for it. Soon after the merger, AMD + ATI was worth less than what they paid for the latter, ultimately leading to the loss of its foundries, putting it in an even worse position. Let's face it, AMD was, and historically has always been betrayed, its sole purpose is to create the illusion of competition so that the big boys don't look bad for running unopposed, even if this is what happens in practice.

    Just when AMD got lucky with Athlon a mole was sent to make sure AMD stays down.
    Reply
  • testbug00 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link

    foundries didn't go because AMD bought ATI. That might have accelerated it by a few years however.

    Foundry issue and cost to AMD dates back to the 1990's and 2000-2001.
    Reply
  • 5150Joker - Thursday, July 2, 2015 - link

    True, AMD was at a much better position in 2006 vs NVIDIA, they just got owned. Reply
  • 3DVagabond - Friday, July 3, 2015 - link

    When was Intel the underdog? Because that's who's knocked them down (The aren't out yet.). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now