Monday, February 18th 2019

AMD Radeon VII Retested With Latest Drivers

Just two weeks ago, AMD released their Radeon VII flagship graphics card. It is based on the new Vega 20 GPU, which is the world's first graphics processor built using a 7 nanometer production process. Priced at $699, the new card offers performance levels 20% higher than Radeon RX Vega 64, which should bring it much closer to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2080. In our testing we still saw a 14% performance deficit compared to RTX 2080. For the launch-day reviews AMD provided media outlets with a press driver dated January 22, 2019, which we used for our review.

Since the first reviews went up, people in online communities have been speculating that these were early drivers and that new drivers will significantly boost the performance of Radeon VII, to make up lost ground over RTX 2080. There's also the mythical "fine wine" phenomenon where performance of Radeon GPUs significantly improve over time, incrementally. We've put these theories to the test by retesting Radeon VII using AMD's latest Adrenalin 2019 19.2.2 drivers, using our full suite of graphics card benchmarks.
In the chart below, we show the performance deltas compared to our original review, for each title three resolutions are tested: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160 (in that order).



Please do note that these results include performance gained by the washer mod and thermal paste change that we had to do when reassembling of the card. These changes reduced hotspot temperatures by around 10°C, allowing the card to boost a little bit higher. To verify what performance improvements were due to the new driver, and what was due to the thermal changes, we first retested the card using the original press driver (with washer mod and TIM). The result was +0.2% improved performance.

Using the latest 19.2.2 drivers added +0.45% on top of that, for a total improvement of +0.653%. Taking a closer look at the results we can see that two specific titles have seen significant gains due to the new driver version. Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and Battlefield V both achieve several-percent improvements, looks like AMD has worked some magic in those games, to unlock extra performance. The remaining titles see small, but statistically significant gains, suggesting that there are some "global" tweaks that AMD can implement to improve performance across the board, but unsurprisingly, these gains are smaller than title-specific optimizations.

Looking further ahead, it seems plausible that AMD can increase performance of Radeon VII down the road, even though we have doubts that enough optimizations can be discovered to match RTX 2080, maybe if suddenly a lot of developers jump on the DirectX 12 bandwagon (which seems unlikely). It's also a question of resources, AMD can't waste time and money to micro-optimize every single title out there. Rather the company seems to be doing the right thing: invest into optimizations for big, popular titles, like Battlefield V and Assassin's Creed. Given how many new titles are coming out using Unreal Engine 4, and how much AMD is lagging behind in those titles, I'd focus on optimizations for UE4 next.
Add your own comment

182 Comments on AMD Radeon VII Retested With Latest Drivers

#101
Countryside
MistralIf I may, a suggestion for benchmarks going forward: have a small icon next to the game titles, indicating if they are nVidia or AMD sponsored.
That's a decent idea, or instead of the icon you can just add text next to the game title nVidia or AMD sponsored
Posted on Reply
#102
lexluthermiester
The improvements offered by these updated drivers are on par with NVidia's same efforts for RTX and seem to show that with proper optimizations Radeon 7 is going to be a great card for a ton of usage scenario's.
Posted on Reply
#103
Fouquin
It doesn't look like a lot, but that's a pretty decent chunk of performance left on the table for the review driver. Seems they could have delayed the launch by a week or two and shown better results.
lasMeanwhile Fury X can gain 3% from OC, bumps up the powerusage like crazy tho. OVERCLOCKERS DREAM!!!
Average core overclock for the Fury X is 1140MHz. That's 14%, not 3%. It still was not a great overclocker, but there's no need to fudge the numbers to push your narrative. Somewhat related, I tested an overclocked Fury X up against a Galax GTX 1070 EXOC and found the performance difference to be in the 5.5 - 11% range. Surprising to see the Fury X that close, to say the least.
Posted on Reply
#104
John Naylor
londisteIs the graph wrong? 5-6% is not multi-digit.
Whaddya talking about ? ... there's a 5 and a 6 :). Two digits is more than one ! In the post 2016 era, nothing means what the dictionary says any more. But speaking of multi digit , have to wonder ... are the days of double digit performance increases after manual OC a memory from a bygone era ? Havn't seem much of it from AMD since the 2xx series but w/ nVidia we saw mid teens normally and even more than 31% on some cards. Now both camps seem to be aggressively overclocking the cards in the box, leaving is under 10% to grab on our own.
londisteStop harping on that. GTX1050Ti has MSRP of $139, RX570 has MSRP of $169. For most part of the lifetime relative prices have reflected that difference only lately moving to where the prices are now.
I still don't see as it matters ... the 1060 remains the better buy over both in "performance per dollar".
Super XPWell if you think about it, the maximum price tag for the highest of the high performance GPUs should be MAX $500. This is speaking about the Radeon VII, RTX 2080. Enthusiast price tag should be no more than $600. That would be a RTX 2080Ti and a Radeon VII+ with custom cooling :D
GPUs, especially the high end versions are all overpriced period.
If you do it accurately and account for inflation, since the year 2000, and excepting the current weirdness resulting from lack of competition at upper end, short supply and even tariffs, the average price of the top dog from nVidia hasn't strayed that much from $700 in 17 years

[/QUOTE]
HD64GSince you are fond of numbers that prove things scientifically, here is an example that proves that AMD GPUs aren't shown in their best form at their launch and this helps us customers to get an equal or better product in better price than will deserve in a few months only. And for a customer that keeps his hardware at least for 3 years, this is an opportunity..
There's two sides of that coin and I recently mentioned that in another thread. The 480 in particular improved significantly with the next driver release ... but you're forgetting just one thing. Like the oft heard comment "Well card B might be slower than Card A but when overclocked, card B is almost as fast as card A". The fact remains, card A can be overclocked too making the comment meaningless. Yes, the 480 git a nice bump afterwards and TOU dedicated an entire article to that subject. However, nVidias drivers provided improevements too. And when you look at the 1060 versus the 480, 580 and even the 590, when all 4 cards are manully overclocked, (based upon the data in TPUs test results on this site), the 1060 has still maintained the edge. The 480 OC'd about 6% .... 580 about 4.4% .... 590 did 3.9% .... the 1060 OCs over 18%. So any advantage we saw from those RX cards from aggressive clocking before putting them "in the box" was erased when users took them out of the box and did the manual OCs. Since 2xx series, AMD cards have been more aggressively clocked when taken "outta the box" typically will manually OC only in single digits, while nVidias cards have ranged from the mid teens most of the time (with rare single digit exceptions) to over 31% manual OC over reference. Even if we ignored driver improvements over time, that's a big hurdle to overcome.

Today, with 2xxx / Radeon VII we are seeing a watershed moment in that all of current cards are seeing manual OCs about 8% over reference which makes side by side comparisons easier when using those charts.

Getting back to the "new drivers" issue have to wonder how much of these improvements are real. Is the game actually performing better across the board ? Or has it just been tweaked a bit more to "look good" in that benchmark. That's what makes sites like TPU a "go to" source for me as Wiz doesn't use the IG demo. As was presented in the chart in Post #59, I have not seen any evidence that either side is doing better than the other in this respect .... that chart says otherwise.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-radeon-vii-retested-with-latest-drivers.252691/post-3997015
Posted on Reply
#105
Fluffmeister
Ouch!!! Fact is, this turd of a card is getting too much attention, it was a token effort at best from AMD whilst they work with their Sony and Microsoft overlords to get Navi into check.... poor show all round AMD.
Posted on Reply
#106
efikkan
The only purpose of this card is to have something until the delayed Navi is ready.
But the attention is not the bad part; the bad part is those who claim it's a decent buy, both in forums and among Youtube opinionators.
Posted on Reply
#107
John Naylor
FouquinAverage core overclock for the Fury X is 1140MHz. That's 14%, not 3%. It still was not a great overclocker, but there's no need to fudge the numbers to push your narrative. Somewhat related, I tested an overclocked Fury X up against a Galax GTX 1070 EXOC and found the performance difference to be in the 5.5 - 11% range. Surprising to see the Fury X that close, to say the least.
Core / memory Ocs don't scale to increases in FPS ... in most instances the best OCs on core and memory do NOT correspond at all to highest fps



As you can see above, the highest cores aren't delivering the most fps.



You'll note that "outta the box' the Fury X beat the "slower" 980 Ti (102.6) by 0.3 fps before overclocking .

However, when TPU OC'd the Fury, it brought just 5.1% to the table .... Now let's look at what happened when TPU OCd the 980 Tis

On the MSI Gaming X 980 Ti, they OC's it 27.2% to hit 130.5 fps, 20.7% faster than the Fury X
On the Giga G1 980 Ti, they OC's it 31.4% to hit 130.5 fps, 24.7% faster than the Fury X
On the Zotac AMP X 980 Ti, they OC's it 27.1% to hit 130.4 fps, 20.6% faster than the Fury X
On the Asus Strix X 980 Ti, they OC's it 28,4% to hit 131.7 fps, 21.8% faster than the Fury X

I'm not going to speak to the "narrative", but the math here is clear. I don't care about who wins, but I do care about facts. The overclocking room for the 980 Ti is 5 - 6 times that of the Fury X. If this is "competiing", it's the 1973 Belmont Stakes
Posted on Reply
#108
Prima.Vera
This card is unfortunatelly 200$ more than it should have been. Nobody is going to pick this over an 1080Ti for example...
Posted on Reply
#109
moproblems99
Prima.VeraThis card is unfortunatelly 200$ more than it should have been. Nobody is going to pick this over an 1080Ti for example...
and few years too late.
Posted on Reply
#110
sergionography
Prima.VeraThis card is unfortunately 200$ more than it should have been. Nobody is going to pick this over an 1080Ti for example...
Unless they wanted 16GB of fast memory and weren't exclusively gamers. This card has a niche. I hear alot of complains about this card but its honestly not as bad as everyone makes it. Simply because it doesn't blow nvidia out of the water doesn't make it a bad card. rtx2070-2080 performance is not exactly "bad". Also this card is newer than the 1080ti and is likely to be supported for longer(for those who don't buy graphics cards every other year)
Posted on Reply
#111
EarthDog
If you compute, it's a great card for the money. If you dont, then it performs worse, uses a lot more power, and is louder than its competition...at the same price point. Compute saves it if those other factors matter.
Posted on Reply
#112
B-Real
Prima.VeraThis card is unfortunatelly 200$ more than it should have been. Nobody is going to pick this over an 1080Ti for example...
Radeon VII buyers get RE2, Division 2 and DMC5. 1080Ti buyers get ZERO games. Thats a $150-180 packet.
FluffmeisterOuch!!! Fact is, this turd of a card is getting too much attention, it was a token effort at best from AMD whilst they work with their Sony and Microsoft overlords to get Navi into check.... poor show all round AMD.
As poor as the whole RTX roundup is. :D
londisteYes, RX570 wipes the floor with GTX1050Ti. They are cards from different segments.
RX570 is the intended competitor of GTX1060 3GB.
GTX1050Ti is the intended competitor of RX560.

Pricing in the lowend and midrage is FUBAR.
False, 1050Ti doesn't have an AMD counterpart. GTX 1050 goes against (and trades blows) with the RX560, RX 470/570 against the 1060 3GB and the RX 570/580 against the 1060 6GB. Anyway, it's true that if there is someone who buys a 1050Ti for the same price as the RX 570 4GB, he is just literally stupis af.
Posted on Reply
#113
Xaled
John NaylorIf you do it accurately and account for inflation, since the year 2000, and excepting the current weirdness resulting from lack of competition at upper end, short supply and even tariffs, the average price of the top dog from nVidia hasn't strayed that much from $700 in 17 years

Where is Titan in this table?
Posted on Reply
#115
turbogear
Radeon VII is not a bad card especially for 2K gaming with Freesync.
It may not match 2080 in every title but for people like me who come from Vega 64 and enjoy Freesync gaming it is a viable upgrade.
I know that Nvidia supports Freesync now but until now only officially on a handful of monitors.
I had a long thought if I should go for 2080 or Radeon VII, but finally decided to go with VII because of concerns with Freesync.
Nvidia does not support as far as I checked my Benq XL2730 freesync monitor and paying between 500€ to 700€ more to get a new good Gsync monitor would have been too much. :oops:
Only cooling performance of the refernce cooler on Radeon VII is not good but a good waterblock will fix that.
Posted on Reply
#116
metalfiber
Imsochobo290X
7970
6970
5870
4870
x1900
x1950xtx
x850
9800 pro
Ah yes, I had a ATI 9800 Pro All In Wonder card...loved that card. Watched Tv, recorded tv and then edit that video. ATI was truly the undisputed king back then. I would not mind it too see that again one day.

Posted on Reply
#117
Rebe1
But does the new drivers fix the Wattman? Can you do the OC / UV without any problems?
Posted on Reply
#118
cucker tarlson
JismAnd in the meantime, the Vega VII scoring merely 300 points behind the 2080TI:

www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+extreme+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

It likes water > and many people archieved a clockspeed of over 2250Mhz. From a maximum boost of 1800Mhz that is not bad at all! It's a great OC'er actually.
it is,if you've cooling capacity to deal with a 500w gpu.
FouquinAverage core overclock for the Fury X is 1140MHz. That's 14%, not 3%.
:confused:

no,that's 8%

1140 is 1.08x of 1050
FouquinSomewhat related, I tested an overclocked Fury X up against a Galax GTX 1070 EXOC and found the performance difference to be in the 5.5 - 11% range. Surprising to see the Fury X that close, to say the least.
that's synthetics,amd always did great in 3dmarks

look at actual games

Posted on Reply
#119
cyneater
londisteYes, RX570 wipes the floor with GTX1050Ti. They are cards from different segments.
RX570 is the intended competitor of GTX1060 3GB.
GTX1050Ti is the intended competitor of RX560.

Pricing in the lowend and midrage is FUBAR.
Pricing is fubur all over the board :P
Posted on Reply
#121
xkm1948
londisteNot really.
Crossfire and still can’t match a single 2080Ti.

Welp
Posted on Reply
#122
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
londisteNot really.
Looks like one card to me no?
Posted on Reply
#123
londiste
INSTG8RLooks like one card to me no?
Click Detailed Result and read the description. Radeon VII is new and 3DMark's detection isn't the best even when tools are OK.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 14:12 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts