AMD Radeon VII 16GB Review: A Surprise Attack on GeForce RTX 2080
-
Page 1:AMD Radeon VII 16GB Review
-
Page 2:How We Tested and Gaming at 2560 x 1440
-
Page 3:Performance Results: Gaming at 3840 x 2160
-
Page 4:Performance Results: LuxMark, SPECviewperf, Cinema4D and Blender
-
Page 5:Power Consumption
-
Page 6:Fan Speed and Noise
-
Page 7:Temperatures and Clock Rates
-
Page 8:Conclusion
Temperatures and Clock Rates
Remember that there are two representations of temperature in play here: edge, or GPU temperature, and junction temperature. In the measurements below, reported as GPU temperature, Vega 20 appears to operate coolly, even though we know the junction temperature AMD uses to control thermal throttling and fan control is quite a bit higher.
Temperatures do rise faster in the closed case and settle about 2°C higher than an open test bench. This isn't too painful at first. After all, AMD's throttling mechanism works differently from Nvidia's, where whole GPU Boost steps are lost as temperature increases.
As our test progresses and Vega 20 warms up, we see that Radeon VII starts switching back and forth between ~1500 MHz and 1740 MHz on the open bench. The jumps progressively become larger and more frequent as the temperature rises. In a closed case, the changes in frequency also seem to be dependent on the rate at which temperature changes. The card even sporadically drops to 1367 MHz!
Since fan speeds and temperatures are held within a very strict limit, clock rates are carefully balanced every step of the way. This behavior is very different from what we've seen from AMD's Radeon RX Vega and Nvidia's GeForce cards. In fact, we haven't seen such severe clock rate fluctuations from any other graphics card.
From what we can tell, Radeon VII doesn't really have a fixed boost frequency. So, you have to distinguish between peak, minimum, and average clock rates. Programs like WattMan and 3DMark reflect maximum values. But the practical relevance of those numbers is debatable. In order to make reliable observations about Radeon VII's boost clock, you need to record several seconds and calculate an average from them.
Let's again draw a comparison between Radeon VII and GeForce RTX 2080 Founders Edition using our benchmark results:
Radeon VII Initial Value | Radeon VII End Value | GeForce RTX 2080 End Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
Open Test Bench | |||
GPU Temperature | 34°C | 73°C | 75°C |
GPU Clock Rate | 1,758 MHz | 1,498 to 1,741 MHz (Alternating) | 1,815 MHz |
Ambient Air Temperature | 22°C | 22°C | 22°C |
Closed Case | |||
GPU Temperature | 36°C | 75°C | 75°C |
GPU Clock Rate | 1,755 MHz | 1,367 to 1,747 MHz (Alternating) | 1,800 MHz |
Ambient Air Temperature | 23°C | 46°C | 43°C |
Board Analysis: Infrared Images
We brushed the board with a special lacquer before collecting measurements, and calibrated the system with thermal sensors at four unique reference points. The homogeneous coating gives us a known emissivity of 0.975, and we take readings at an angle of 90 degrees.
The following infrared images, captured during our gaming loop and stress test in a closed case and on an open test bench, convey meaningful real-world information. Compared to WattMan, which made logging data problematic at best, our infrared measurements are far more reliable.
Differences in the gaming loop between our open bench table and closed case are visible, but within the expected range of two to three degrees.
Our stress test imposes up to 20W-higher power consumption, which is dissipated as waste heat. Interestingly, the temperature we read below the GPU package was higher than the value that WattMan reported as GPU temperature.
In a closed case, everything gets hotter. What's reported as GPU temperature nearly hits 80°C, and according to AMD, junction temperature should be even higher.
Unfortunately, we couldn't log the results of our stress test with WattMan because the program returned nonsensical data. In several measurements, the software simply stopped recording after only a few lines. At least we have values from our camera.
MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table
MORE: All Graphics Content
Don't get me wrong. It is still a better card than an RTX 2070. But it's performance doesn't justify RTX 2080 pricing. Based on current pricing on PCParticker of the 2070 and 2080. $600 USD would be a price better suited for it.
Compute is a different matter. Depending on your specific work requirements. You can get some great bang for your buck.
Still it would be nice if AMD could blow out the pricing in the GPU segment as it does in the CPU segment. Although their strategy may be more of an attack on the compute segment. Given the large amount of memory and FP64 performance.
Did you mean predecessor?
I know this has been mentioned, but do we have any hard data where we know this for certain?
I remember asking someone before, and they posted a link, but even that seemed to be a he-said-she-said kind of thing.
I do have to agree, though, overall, with a vague disappointment. Given its performance, value-wise, it seems this is worthwhile only if you really want at least two of the games in the bundle.
I hadn't thought about what AMD's motivation was, but the thought that even AMD was caught a little by surprise at Nvidia's somewhat arrogant pricing for the RTX 2070/2080/2080Ti, and "smelled blood" as it were, is somewhat plausible.
The Ryzen CPU however I am interested in, the 2700X is a good deal and waiting for the Ryzen 3e generation to appear and see what this baby can do compare to Intel high end . But no I own a GTX1070 il think I pass this whole RTX and Radeon VII generation, there is not so much to gain for the price at this time.
The price cut from ~$5,000 (vanilla MI50) to $700 doesn't hurt.
Some undervolting and -clocking should do wonders to noise and heat.
Time to sit back and wait for Navi...
I don't see how the 2060 is a compelling value story. Sure, it's more cost-efficient than its high-end cousins, but the 2060 offers very little in the way of a performance increase to people who were in the same price bracket previously (1070 owners), and it offers an enormous price and power premium to people who own 1060s.
Spent ~$370 almost 3 years ago for an Nvidia card? Well now you can plop down roughly the same money for about a 15% performance increase and a 2 GB loss of VRAM. That tech-journalists actually tout this as great progress mystifies me.
Unfortunately this newest release from AMD doesn't look like it presages significant price pressure to bring Nvidia back down to earth. Things might get better as AMD drives towards down towards the midrange segment, but who knows? Here's hoping.
I have always been an AMD fanboy, in fact I run an r9 290x right now and had a 5850 before that. I have considered the 1080(non TI), but in my case i use a 3x 1080 eyefinity setup for racing/flight sim and just one 1080p freesync for FPS games.
I just dont see an amazing upgrade out there for me at something along the same price i spent last time. ($400)
I guess the inner cheapo in my means I am never, ever, going to spend more than around that price for a video card.
And the next time i do shell out that amount of money for a graphics card, i want at least a %35 increase in the games i play before its worth it.
If AMD was really hoping to change the game, this thing should have been $100-$150 cheaper, OR draw a lot less power and make a lot less noise.
As it stands.... meh
The review mentions once or twice that Radeon VII is late to the party and its performance isn't stellar. A day late and a dollar short. I have to give AMD props for launching within a half a year of the 2080 compared to Vega 64 which launched 15 months later. My opinion of Vega 64 might have better a little better if it wasn't launched so far out.
Judging Radeon VII by its power consumption and thermal performance, it looks like its Vega 64 on steroids. This card pushes its power delivery and cooling systems to their absolute limits and beyond. I'm really happy that it competes closely with the RTX 2080 but I was hoping for some additional head room over Vega 64.
It feels like AMD didn't know who it wanted to market to despite claiming that this a high end gaming graphics card. Gamers don't need 16GB of HBM2. Gamers don't need improved FP64 performance. I like these features but it puts the focus all over the place. Radeon VII has its hand in several different pies but doesn't excel at any of those pies (remind me to rework that statement later).
Several people have mentioned this so far and I want to reiterate:
AMD could have reduced the clock speed of Radeon VII and cut its HBM2 reserves in half and marketed this as a RTX 2070 killer. We would have seen easier to manage thermals and a lower price. This Radeon VI (see what I did there?) would have been more appealing to a wider audience.
The performance : power consumption ratio of Radeon VII is MAXED out right now.
AMD can't extract anything else from this design despite the smaller foot print.
That's a difficult call to make. The difference is compounded by Radeon VII being very inefficient and Turing being very well optimized. Radeon VII is built on the GCN architecture. Its antiquated despite all of the tweaks its received over the years. That's why AMD's Navi architecture is so important: it breaks away from GCN and represents a clean (and hopefully more efficient) slate.
No matter how much a gunsmith tweaks a muzzle loading musket design, it will never be as good as a semi automatic rifle.
Also the larger die size chips cost more to make.