These benchmarks are like the ones we ran under DirectX in that we tested both workstation and consumer cards (minus the defunct Quadro 5000, of course). The results themselves are fairly self-explanatory.
AMD's workstation and consumer cards do very well in our bitmining test, showing off the benefits of their GCN architecture.
We used Luxmark 2.0 since it contains a somewhat simpler scene. The slower cards’ performance barely even registers with more complex rendering tasks. As we add complexity, the FirePro W-series cards pull ahead even more.
PostFX uses both OpenGL and OpenCL to create a challenging benchmark. This used to be Nvidia’s strong suit, but the introduction of AMD’s GCN architecture reverses that trend.
AMD’s FirePro W-series cards don’t fare quite as well solving the NQueens problem. The differences are smaller than they used to be, but Fermi still wins.
Current page: OpenCL BenchmarksPrev Page DirectX Benchmarks Next Page Power Consumption And Temperatures
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Typical of AMD : releasing cards without proper drivers.Reply
I bet most professionals wont touch these cards until atleast 3-4 driver revisions. These cards are newer, and perform worse than competitions older.
1.How does the CPU performance affect the benchmarks ? IOW, are these softwares enough offloaded on to the GPU, that changing the CPU to a much better Intel Xeons wont affect the performance much ?Reply
2. Also, how do the consumer cards perform on these pro softwares ?
They are new architecture, it's kinda expected result. I can see there a room for improvement, but without the application that can take advantage of it, then it will useless..Reply
in the end I'm glad to see that AMD graphic section is trying to make an effort, not like the their proc section..
My impression is that on average, Nvidia higher quality. IMHO of courseReply
mayankleoboy1Typical of AMD : releasing cards without proper drivers.I bet most professionals wont touch these cards until atleast 3-4 driver revisions. These cards are newer, and perform worse than competitions older.Did you not read all the benchmarks? In many of the benchmarks it beat out Nvidia's offering by a lot, some were even, some were worse. And they are cheaper than the those Nvidia cards it would seem by the price offering of 4.2k for the Quadro 6000 right on the last page, compared to 4k for the W9000 and 1.6k for the W8000.Reply
So depending on what you use it for, it may very well be a great choice.
Please note that dozens of software companies (all the most prevalent in DCC and CAD) have thoroughly tested and certified the drivers for the W8000 and W9000 cards. This means that users of these applications should not be concerned about driver stability or user experience.Reply
Yes, this is a brand new architecture and yes, performance improvements will continue to be made with subsequent driver optimizations.
Even though no one will prolly ever play games on a workstation, this are the first cards to have equal or superior gaming performance over the consumer cards also. Wonder if taking a HD 7970 and possibly mooding the bios for a FirePro one how will it impact the workstation benchmarks.Reply
The review needs at least one gaming GPU as comparison.Reply
I always wondered how well these cards would do with games, anyone an idea? :)Reply
ohimEven though no one will prolly ever play games on a workstation, this are the first cards to have equal or superior gaming performance over the consumer cards also. Wonder if taking a HD 7970 and possibly mooding the bios for a FirePro one how will it impact the workstation benchmarks.Reply
AFAIK, its not possible now to BIOS mod a regular 7970 into a W9000. AMD and Nvidia have become smarter.