The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Review, Feat. Sapphire & ASUS
by Ryan Smith on July 10, 2015 9:00 AM ESTCompute
Shifting gears, we have our look at compute performance. As compute performance will be more significantly impacted by the reduction in CUs than most other tests, we’re expecting the performance hit for the R9 Fury relative to the R9 Fury X to be more significant here than under our gaming tests.
Starting us off for our look at compute is LuxMark3.0, the latest version of the official benchmark of LuxRender 2.0. LuxRender’s GPU-accelerated rendering mode is an OpenCL based ray tracer that forms a part of the larger LuxRender suite. Ray tracing has become a stronghold for GPUs in recent years as ray tracing maps well to GPU pipelines, allowing artists to render scenes much more quickly than with CPUs alone.
For LuxMark with the R9 Fury X already holding the top spot, the R9 Fury cards easily take the next two spots. One interesting artifact of this is that the R9 Fury’s advantage over the GTX 980 is actually greater than the R9 Fury X’s over the GTX 980 Ti’s, both on an absolute and relative basis. This despite the fact that the R9 Fury is some 13% slower than its fully enabled sibling.
For our second set of compute benchmarks we have CompuBench 1.5, the successor to CLBenchmark. CompuBench offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on face detection, optical flow modeling, and particle simulations.
Not unlike LuxMark, tests where the R9 Fury X did well have the R9 Fury doing well too, particularly the optical flow sub-benchmark. The drop-off in that benchmark and face detection is about what we’d expect for losing 1/8th of Fiji’s CUs. On the other hand the particle simulation benchmark is hardly fazed beyond the clockspeed drop, indicating that the bottleneck lies elsewhere.
Our 3rd compute benchmark is Sony Vegas Pro 13, an OpenGL and OpenCL video editing and authoring package. Vegas can use GPUs in a few different ways, the primary uses being to accelerate the video effects and compositing process itself, and in the video encoding step. With video encoding being increasingly offloaded to dedicated DSPs these days we’re focusing on the editing and compositing process, rendering to a low CPU overhead format (XDCAM EX). This specific test comes from Sony, and measures how long it takes to render a video.
At this point Vegas is becoming increasingly CPU-bound and will be due for replacement. The R9 Fury comes in one second behind the chart-topping R9 Fury X, at 22 seconds.
Moving on, our 4th compute benchmark is FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance. Each precision has two modes, explicit and implicit, the difference being whether water atoms are included in the simulation, which adds quite a bit of work and overhead. This is another OpenCL test, utilizing the OpenCL path for FAHCore 17.
Overall while the R9 Fury doesn’t have to aim quite as high given its weaker GTX 980 competition, FAHBench still stresses the Radeon cards. Under single precision tests the GTX 980 pulls ahead, only surpassed under double precision thanks to NVIDIA’s weaker FP64 performance.
Wrapping things up, our final compute benchmark is an in-house project developed by our very own Dr. Ian Cutress. SystemCompute is our first C++ AMP benchmark, utilizing Microsoft’s simple C++ extensions to allow the easy use of GPU computing in C++ programs. SystemCompute in turn is a collection of benchmarks for several different fundamental compute algorithms, with the final score represented in points. DirectCompute is the compute backend for C++ AMP on Windows, so this forms our other DirectCompute test.
As with our other tests the R9 Fury loses some performance on our C++ AMP benchmark relative to the R9 Fury X, but only around 8%. As a result it’s competitive with the GTX 980 Ti here, blowing well past the GTX 980.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
288 Comments
View All Comments
CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
If you still can't understand numbers but only can understand bar colors, I can sum up things for you for the same game (Crysys 3) also for the techpowerup review at 2560x1440 (the resolution for this kind of cards):At 780Ti presentation (nov 2013)
780ti 27
290X 26.3
At Fuxy X presentation (so, last week):
780ti 29.3
290X 29.4
So the 290X passed from -0.7fps to +0.1fps... WOW! That is a miracle!!!!!
Only a fanboy should think about that, or one that does not understand benchmarks numbers, can't interpret them and can only see bar length/relative positions.
You see a similar trend with Battlefield 3, where the 290X from -3fps became -0.3fps. And both cards have raised their FPS.
So, yes, AMD recovered a fraction of nothing and nvidia didn't crippled anything.
You have also not noted that in the meantime AMD changed the 290X policy on BIOS and custom, so all cards have become "uber" and better custom radiators allowed the card not to be throttled. So the advantage of this performance is reserved for those that have bought these cards, not for those that have bought the "not sampled" reference ones (can you remember the issue about those cards in retail market that have quite different performances with respect to those send to reviewers?). Yes, another miracle...
These are the MYTH I like reading about that only fanboy can sustain. These are the type of arguments that let you clearly spot a fanboy in the group.
CiccioB - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
So, where are the facts sustaining your myth? I can't see them and it seems you can't provide them either.Yes, 780Ti a crappy investment... it was good the 290X with stuttering all over the place that still continues today with DX9 games.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
Thank you CiccioB, I was wondering if another sane person was here.loguerto - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link
This is the primary reason why i buy AMD, because i am not willing to change my hardware every year i brought a 290x in 2013 and in that period it was neck to neck with the 780 ti, after nearly two years the 290x destroys the 780 ti and beats constantly even the 970, which at it's release was ahead. The 970 remained there with the performance meanwhile the 290x continued improving. I am so glad i brought the 290x.CiccioB - Monday, July 13, 2015 - link
You are a poor man with no clue on what it is buying. Your justification for buying the cheaper card on the market are quite pitiful.I bet you can't report a single case where Kepler run faster before than it is today. Nor can't you evaluate how much this miraculous" AMD drivers have improved your gaming experience.
Can you? Let's see these numbers.
If not, well, just don't go on with this king of talking because it really picture you (all AMD fanboys) more ridiculous than you already are.
FlushedBubblyJock - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
What the HELL are you babbling about ?The 980 wasn't realeased THEN at your "proof link" and the 290x is winning over the 780...
WHAT FANTASY HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF OF YOU AMD FANBOY... TIME WILL NOT HEAL THE FURY AND FURY X LOSSES !
mikato - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
I agree. This would make a fantastic article - and a unique critical thinking subject that Anandtech is well positioned to undertake and is known for. It would certainly generate traffic and be linked to like crazy, hint hint.ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
"The R9 Fury offers between 8% and 17% better performance than the GTX 980, depending on if we’re looking at 4K or 1440p""I don’t believe the R9 Fury is a great 4K card"
"in a straight-up performance shootout with the GTX 980 the R9 Fury is 10% more expensive for 8%+ better performance."
"This doesn’t make either card a notably better value"
So at resolutions under 4K, which are the applications you recommend for the R9 Fury, it performs 17% better than the GTX 980 for 10% more price, and yet you conclude it is not a better value? Help me out here. It would be more accurate to say that neither card is a better value for 4K gaming, where the difference was indeed 8%. Any resolution below that, the Fury X is indeed a better value.
Ryan Smith - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
At 1440p the Fury X is 8% faster for 10% more cost. From a value standpoint that's a wash.At 4K the lead is upwards of 17%, but on an absolute basis it's a bit too slow if you're serious about 4K.
ajlueke - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link
Thanks for the clarification. Also, I really appreciate the inclusion of the 7970 data, as I currently run a 3.5 yr old reference version of that card.