I wonder the reasons of Fury Series's failure. The card has very high theoretical bandwith and crazy compute power. (But it has only 64 ROPs.) It had to be have more real life performance but it has not.
The question is:Why?
There's my assumptions about what caused this:
1/The first reason based on a fact not an assumption.
The card's bandwith is not very high in the real life applications. So maybe even this card is limited by memory performance.
But why HBM fails? The test result let AMD lovers down.
When we look at the benchmark we see a ratio about test result/theoritical bandwith ratio. It's about %75-%80. (TITAN has 288 GB/s memory power and 221 GB/s memory copy performance result---->%76, R9 390X has 384 GB/s-302 GB/s--->%78). But when we look at the result of Fury X, we see a horrible score: 357 GB/s. It's horrible because we expect more than that. The ratio is 357/512(%70)
2/The color compression doesn't work well due to unknown reasons.
3/Number of ROPs hold the potential of the card. Hawaii and GTX 980 has 64 ROPs-they aim lower performance class, TITAN X and 980 Tİ has 96. Are we sure that there's no bottleneck on the GPU and the GPU has well balanced?
4/Additional compute power helps nothing.
5/There's something wrong with the drivers.
6/Unknown, unpredictable reasons. Something limits Fury somehow.
I'm really wonder the reason. But i have not enough information to make accurate comment about this event. For example:
*I don't know which game's any frame needs how much instructions be executed, how much pixel has drawn, how much triangle to be created etc. etc. Someone profiling some games but there's no database about it in the hardware websites. I am tinkering around with some profiling tools, but i am very amateur and i am not be able to reach any useful information.
*I don't have any idea how the drivers work and how this affect the performance. Maybe the problems on the drivers hit Fury more than any other GCN cards.
Are there someone any ideas about how could so powerful card not to be powerful in the real life.
Sorry about my English.
The question is:Why?
There's my assumptions about what caused this:
1/The first reason based on a fact not an assumption.
The card's bandwith is not very high in the real life applications. So maybe even this card is limited by memory performance.
But why HBM fails? The test result let AMD lovers down.
When we look at the benchmark we see a ratio about test result/theoritical bandwith ratio. It's about %75-%80. (TITAN has 288 GB/s memory power and 221 GB/s memory copy performance result---->%76, R9 390X has 384 GB/s-302 GB/s--->%78). But when we look at the result of Fury X, we see a horrible score: 357 GB/s. It's horrible because we expect more than that. The ratio is 357/512(%70)
2/The color compression doesn't work well due to unknown reasons.
3/Number of ROPs hold the potential of the card. Hawaii and GTX 980 has 64 ROPs-they aim lower performance class, TITAN X and 980 Tİ has 96. Are we sure that there's no bottleneck on the GPU and the GPU has well balanced?
4/Additional compute power helps nothing.
5/There's something wrong with the drivers.
6/Unknown, unpredictable reasons. Something limits Fury somehow.
I'm really wonder the reason. But i have not enough information to make accurate comment about this event. For example:
*I don't know which game's any frame needs how much instructions be executed, how much pixel has drawn, how much triangle to be created etc. etc. Someone profiling some games but there's no database about it in the hardware websites. I am tinkering around with some profiling tools, but i am very amateur and i am not be able to reach any useful information.
*I don't have any idea how the drivers work and how this affect the performance. Maybe the problems on the drivers hit Fury more than any other GCN cards.
Are there someone any ideas about how could so powerful card not to be powerful in the real life.
Sorry about my English.