AMD's FirePro w9000/w8000 review thread.

[Jaydip]

Well given how compute intensive gcn is it should have easily beaten quadro 6000,but it can't.Its a 2 year old card now.Amd should make haste as the new quadro k is just around the corner.The disappointing thing is nv is not replacing quadro 6000 just yet Thats left for the gk110.

 

[Ancalagon44]

3d add this link as well
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-w8000-w9000-benchmark,3265.html

Wow, AMD must have paid a lot for that.

The new AMD cards get trounced all over the place in the benchmarks, but in the conclusion, they say it would be unfair to compare them to a Quadro, and then recommend it? WTF!

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Its terrible right now thanks to AMD's terrible drivers, and only a moron would buy it!

 

[Vesku]

I'll have to defend Tomshardware on this one. With these professional GPUs it's less about general performance and more about how it performs for the specific applications someone is using. Just look at old SPECviewperf 11 Maya versus their Maya 2013 numbers. In such a case someone who knows they will be using a pre-Maya 2013 version for quite some time to come will be better off with the Quadro. Ensight appears to run well on the Firepro but a Catia user is better off with almost any modern Quadro card.

 

[Akantus]

I'll have to defend Tomshardware on this one. With these professional GPUs it's less about general performance and more about how it performs for the specific applications someone is using. Just look at old SPECviewperf 11 Maya versus their Maya 2013 numbers. In such a case someone who knows they will be using a pre-Maya 2013 version for quite some time to come will be better off with the Quadro. Ensight appears to run well on the Firepro but a Catia user is better off with almost any modern Quadro card.

While this is true, if you look at Quadro, it is able to get pretty consistent results everywhere. Of course where Firepro is working it is faster, but it better be, because it's new tech on new process. I hope AMD get their stuff together, because before end of the year GK110 based quadro should be released and it will be monster.

 

[Arkadrel]

Wow, AMD must have paid a lot for that.

The new AMD cards get trounced all over the place in the benchmarks, but in the conclusion, they say it would be unfair to compare them to a Quadro, and then recommend it? WTF!

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Its terrible right now thanks to AMD's terrible drivers, and only a moron would buy it!

Ensight:

Lightwave:

Solidworks:

Siemens NX :

AutoCad 2013 /w 2D performance:

AutoCad 2013 /w 3D performance:

Maya 2013: 3D performance:

Its not as bad as you make it out to be Ancalagon44, posted some of the benches above where AMD beats nvidia.
AMD does good in Autocad & Maya, f.eks.

 

[piesquared]

And again, the performance is all over the place. Either it wins (sometimes by a lot) or it loses badly. We all know the potential is there, but the results sometimes are, and sometimes aren't.

From the article:

As are nv's quadro cards. Maybe say a word or two about how poor nv's software is in many applications.

 

[Akantus]

As are nv's quadro cards. Maybe say a word or two about how poor nv's software is in many applications.

How come? I see them performing pretty good for last gen. Generally they are either first, or second in benchmarks where AMD's new card work really well. Sometimes they fall off with lots of AA, but I can imagine they could be used for any of the tested software.

That doesn't mean there isn't software that isn't favoring AMD, just like there is some that favors Nvidia. I was talking more of the big picture here. Amd cards sometimes lead quite a lot (like they should), but sometimes they are slower than last gen midrange from Nvidia.

I'm sure drivers will eventually fix that, all I'm saying is that it we would be better if drivers were working at launch, because first impression really maters.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Its not as bad as you make it out to be Ancalagon44, posted some of the benches above where AMD beats nvidia.
AMD does good in Autocad & Maya, f.eks.

Winning in a few benchmarks is not what I would call a convincing win for brand new cards that are a generation ahead of Nvidias! They even lose to their older siblings sometimes.

Its the consistency thats the problem here. I would not recommend a FirePro based on this. How do I KNOW it will work well in my application? Based on these benchmarks, performance is all over the place and anything but consistent - ie not reliable.

At least with a Quadro, you may not win in every benchmark, but you dont get beat by older gen Quadros!

 

[Arkadrel]

@Ancalagon44

You have a point, about consistancy. However even nvidia have a few benchmarks where their cards perform pretty poorly compaired to AMD ones.

How do I KNOW it will work well in my application?

The same way you know for games, you find a benchmark matching the program your running.

Winning in a few benchmarks is not what I would call a convincing win for brand new cards that are a generation ahead of Nvidias!

I wouldnt call it a "few", its more like 7 out of 10 benchmarks (so more often than not).
But your right, this is a new gen vs nvidia's old gen.

Until nvidia gets its new gen out for Quadros, theres a good chance for a Firepro card is gonna be the fastest thing you can get for your application.

 

[Vesku]

Uh... you look at results for your desired application(s). Consult more industry specific hardware information resources. That sort of thing.

 

[cantholdanymore]

Amazing, most pro cards related stuff gets lost in this forum, but I guess some people can't resist a good old spanking.

 

[3DVagabond]

3d add this link as well
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firepro-w8000-w9000-benchmark,3265.html

Thanks and done. I've also added Legit Reviews. I have to read all the reviews yet. I think it's safe to say that with a larger sampling at least the "potential" for GCN is showing up.

From a quick scan of what's posted here I'd likely get the V7900 @ $690 for 3D work. Compute would be a different story, but you can afford to run a lot of V7900's to make up the stagger. The price seems way out of wack.

Looks like Rory didn't learn from the Tahiti release. High price and immature drivers. By the time they get the latter fixed the former will have to be cut because people's mindset will be that the card isn't competitive. Another half baked attempt.



Edit: After reading Tom's review it's obvious that AMD hasn't optimized for the SPECviewperf 11 benchmark suite, which was mentioned in the review. This leads me to ask, What's the point of the suite if it doesn't reflect the actual performance of the applications you're supposed to be testing? Seems, looking at the inverse, a company could optimize for the benchmark suite and not the apps. You read reviews and it tells you nothing about the real world performance. Completely worthless application, then! We need to see a review with the actual software. I know the software is expensive to buy, but there's free demo versions that could be used. then it would require that the reviewers know how to use the software. That could be a problem. It's a bit more complicated than playing a game.

As far as optimizing goes, keep in mind that the software engineers are going to be using nVidia cards when they are writing the software. This means that almost by default nVidia cards are going to be optimized to a very high degree. This doesn't excuse AMD not properly optimizing their hardware. It just makes it a lot easier for nVidia to have properly optimized performance out of the gate. The only reason I can see for AMD releasing these cards at this time is they are expecting GK110 to be out, or at least shown, sooner rather than later and can't wait for more mature drivers.

Interesting gaming performance. Better than the gaming cards?

 

[Jaydip]

3d remove the legit review please,that is one of the worst reviews i have ever read
They honestly don't know anything about professional card reviews it seems

 

[3DVagabond]

3d remove the legit review please,that is one of the worst reviews i have ever read
They honestly don't know anything about professional card reviews it seems

Sorry, mate. It is what it is. I report TT's reviews, too. It doesn't get much worse than that, from a competency point of view, IMO.

To be honest I wasn't going to put Legit Review's article up. I read it a few days ago. I figured that if I was going to be complete though I would list all of them I know of.

To the defense of these guys they don't have anyone on staff who would know how to properly test these cards. I once requested a site they include more benchmarks for pro apps. They were honest enough to admit that they'd have no idea how to even run the Mental Ray renderer (3DMax/Maya) or even navigate the editor to bench anything correctly. For the amount of people interested it wouldn't be worth trying to learn. If they can't just install a benchmark and hit go, it's too complicated.

 

[Jaydip]

The reviewers get to keep the consumer cards,is it same for the pro cards as well?amd can't be very happy with that review.Those cards aren't cheap.

 

[3DVagabond]

I've wondered myself why AMD would continue to send cards to sites that they know are going to do a hatchet job. Especially when there's only going to be a limited number of review samples. They really need to start reading the reviews, I think.

Don't get me wrong. An honestly bad review is different. I like the reviewers who, if they find an issue with a piece of hardware, tell the supplier and ask them if they have a remedy or replacement unit. Or, suggest a remedy if they know one.

An example, I saw a PSU review recently of a ~1300w unit that the site received an 18AWG power cord with (full retail packaging). They of course mentioned it in the review, because it's not really safe to draw that much current through an 18AWG wire. They said they didn't know whether there was a mistake made with the review unit they were sent or if all the units would come with 18AWG power cords. Maybe it's just me, but I think they should have asked if that was the correct cord for the unit. Then, if it was, I'd tell them that for a 15 amp device the US standard is 14AWG. If there was an admitted oversight, or if they were going to update the unit, I would have reported it in the review. I'd tell customers to check for that and where to go to get a free replacement cord. If the 18AWG cord was in fact the way all units would be shipped, I'd just fail it and tell everyone not to buy it because it's a fire hazard. Instead they did neither. They did put a heavier cord on the review unit so they wouldn't have a fire, and took a couple of points off of the review score.

 

[lopri]

I've wondered myself why AMD would continue to send cards to sites that they know are going to do a hatchet job. Especially when there's only going to be a limited number of review samples. They really need to start reading the reviews, I think.

Agree. It's dumb for AMD to send these professional cards to non-target market reviewers.

 

[3DVagabond]

Anandtech review. Ominously titled, "The AMD FirePro W9000 & W8000 Review: Part 1" [que: dramatic music]

Edit: OK looked at it. It's a tease to let us know it's coming. Hopefully with Ryan taking his time it will answer more questions than it asks.

Also, Ryan. Are you going to test Photoshop? Other Adobe apps would be useful as well, but for my use PS (extended) is important. I use it for textures and the editing window when using it with 3D content is not the fastest.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Anandtech review. Ominously titled, "The AMD FirePro W9000 & W8000 Review: Part 1" [que: dramatic music]

I haven't read it yet. Just wanted to update the thread before someone had to point it out.

Part 1 contains basic information - no benchmarks. Part 2 will contain benchmarks, and is coming later in the week.

@Ancalagon44

The same way you know for games, you find a benchmark matching the program your running.

What if my particular combination of OS/drivers/application version resulted in terrible performance? How would I know that would not happen? Given how immature AMD's drivers are, thats more than likely. Lets not even mention their Linux drivers. Thats the problem with inconsistency - since the results are as inconsistent as they are, even if I am using a program that AMD benchmarked well in, can I be guaranteed of the same results?

I wouldnt call it a "few", its more like 7 out of 10 benchmarks (so more often than not).
But your right, this is a new gen vs nvidia's old gen.

And I think this is the crux of it - reviews should be used to form average opinions about products. Since AMD's card loses in more benchmarks than it wins, despite being newer, is it a good product right now? I would say, no. Yes, some lucky soul might have the right combination to get the best out of it. Good for him, go buy it right now. For the average user, the Nvidia card will be better, and thats why I thought the review was terrible.

Until nvidia gets its new gen out for Quadros, theres a good chance for a Firepro card is gonna be the fastest thing you can get for your application.

If AMD sorts its drivers out, maybe.

 

[3DVagabond]

Part 1 contains basic information - no benchmarks. Part 2 will contain benchmarks, and is coming later in the week.

Yeah. I've looked at it and see it's mostly to let everyone know there's a review coming. Since Ryan's taking his time and posting a "preamble" we should assume it will be very in depth.

What if my particular combination of OS/drivers/application version resulted in terrible performance? How would I know that would not happen? Given how immature AMD's drivers are, thats more than likely. Lets not even mention their Linux drivers. Thats the problem with inconsistency - since the results are as inconsistent as they are, even if I am using a program that AMD benchmarked well in, can I be guaranteed of the same results?

No doubt that nVidia has been the most consistent choice and at the present time they still are. Just like the consumer market thouugh, we need AMD to compete. Competition is a good thing.

You thinking that somehow the card is going to operate differently on your system with the same app, OS, and drivers doesn't make sense to me though.

And I think this is the crux of it - reviews should be used to form average opinions about products. Since AMD's card loses in more benchmarks than it wins, despite being newer, is it a good product right now? I would say, no. Yes, some lucky soul might have the right combination to get the best out of it. Good for him, go buy it right now. For the average user, the Nvidia card will be better, and thats why I thought the review was terrible.

I don't see how luck has anything to do with it. If you use an app that GCN is optimized for, you're golden.

If AMD sorts its drivers out, maybe.

Oh ye of little faith.

 

[Ancalagon44]

You thinking that somehow the card is going to operate differently on your system with the same app, OS, and drivers doesn't make sense to me though.

No, my point is the opposite. What if I have the same OS and app but different drivers? What if a new driver breaks performance in my app? What if I want to use Linux? Too many unknowns!

Oh ye of little faith.

No I'm just sick of AMD performing badly. Lets face it, there is no other word for this. Its a bad release. The drivers and support are not ready yet.

At the moment, AMD has very little of the professional market. Why? Because of issues like this. Because they dont do as much driver work as Nvidia. Because they dont work enough with ISVs. Because they release products that have immature drivers and then wonder why they dont perform well in the market.

So AMD is doing the exact same things that make them unpopular in the professional market. They are the reason why they dont have any market share! I just hate seeing companies screw up like this. Like come on, its not that hard. Just dont release your cards until drivers are right, because first impressions count. Lets face it, professionals have a poor impression of AMD. How will this help them?

Thats what is so infuriating about it. AMD is sucking at the moment not because their engineers are not talented, but because their management is just terrible.

 

[3DVagabond]

No, my point is the opposite. What if I have the same OS and app but different drivers? What if a new driver breaks performance in my app? What if I want to use Linux? Too many unknowns!

If a new driver breaks something, rollback to the previous one that worked.

We'll have to see a review under Linux to know. I wouldn't recommend anyone buying any gpu blindly.

No I'm just sick of AMD performing badly. Lets face it, there is no other word for this. Its a bad release. The drivers and support are not ready yet.

At the moment, AMD has very little of the professional market. Why? Because of issues like this. Because they dont do as much driver work as Nvidia. Because they dont work enough with ISVs. Because they release products that have immature drivers and then wonder why they dont perform well in the market.

So AMD is doing the exact same things that make them unpopular in the professional market. They are the reason why they dont have any market share! I just hate seeing companies screw up like this. Like come on, its not that hard. Just dont release your cards until drivers are right, because first impressions count. Lets face it, professionals have a poor impression of AMD. How will this help them?

Thats what is so infuriating about it. AMD is sucking at the moment not because their engineers are not talented, but because their management is just terrible.

I don't know if you've read the whole thread or not. I agree that this is a premature release and have stated as much. Please understand though that this is a new architecture and, unlike nVidia, the applications weren't coded with AMD hardware in the software engineers' workstations. I'd almost be willing to bet that there isn't a single AMD card in any workstation at Autodesk. I use C4D and I would bet you that there isn't anyone there running an AMD GPU.

This is the biggest hurdle AMD has to overcome. It's like every application is TWIMTBP. Be that as it may, if they want that to change they are going to have to put in the extra work to make it happen. With nVidia being so firmly entrenched it isn't going to be easy.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I don't know if you've read the whole thread or not. I agree that this is a premature release and have stated as much. Please understand though that this is a new architecture and, unlike nVidia, the applications weren't coded with AMD hardware in the software engineers' workstations. I'd almost be willing to bet that there isn't a single AMD card in any workstation at Autodesk. I use C4D and I would bet you that there isn't anyone there running an AMD GPU.

This is the biggest hurdle AMD has to overcome. It's like every application is TWIMTBP. Be that as it may, if they want that to change they are going to have to put in the extra work to make it happen. With nVidia being so firmly entrenched it isn't going to be easy.

That is a problem, but I really dont think its the only problem. Really, AMD has known this was the case for years, and did nothing to rectify it. Now they release a new batch of cards, with poor drivers and poor vendor support. I'm sorry, I have no patience for AMD when it comes to these kinds of things anymore.

 

[Jaydip]

Well professional card users are least interested in hothardware,thg or legit reviews.Before investing they do a stringent validation on these cards.They buy/acquire/get couple of cards and see if it can match up to their expectations.Nv or amd participate in this process as well to find any bottleneck that might be happening.Only if everything goes as planned they go for a contractual deal.Because just buying the card is not enough all the other components should be capable as well.For e.g. we use hp z800 for our work,they are quite expensive and very few people would buy a quadro 6000 or fp w9000 without that kind of system.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well professional card users are least interested in hothardware,thg or legit reviews.Before investing they do a stringent validation on these cards.They buy/acquire/get couple of cards and see if it can match up to their expectations.Nv or amd participate in this process as well to find any bottleneck that might be happening.Only if everything goes as planned they go for a contractual deal.Because just buying the card is not enough all the other components should be capable as well.For e.g. we use hp z800 for our work,they are quite expensive and very few people would buy a quadro 6000 or fp w9000 without that kind of system.

From what I can figure so far, the w9000 is mainly being marketed for compute. Or possibly for driving large screen arrays. Like I said earlier, the V7900 (possibly the new W7000) would be about all of the gpu I'd likely need for 3D graphics and modeling, excluding rendering, anyway. Considering the price though, it would likely be a waste for that too. A pair of W8000's would be superior and cheaper.

Edit: Actually, from Tom's review I'd be better off getting some 7970's for GPU rendering.