System:
GPU R9 Fury X at +5% OC. max Power Limit (+50%)
CPU i7-4790k at +15% OC
RAM 32GB DDR3
Motherboard Asus Z97 DUAL / Deluxe.
Windows 10 64bit 18.03
Adrenalin 18.10.1
Monitor Resolution. 1080p 75Hz FreeSync.
Benchmark result on R9 Fury X.
And running at 4K 60Hz monitor at Ultra, pushing the CPU harder with +20% OC and the R9 Fury X at a +7.5% OC and +50% power limit
There is no DX12 MultiGPU support for this title, I have checked. It will not run in DX12 MultiGPU with a pair of R9 FuryX or R9 FuryX/Nano combination.
So I cannot even get increased FPS that way. Why is DX12 MultiGPU not implemented? I am pretty well convinced a pair of RX Vega 64 Red Dragons would beat an RTX2080Ti in this title if they were run in MultiGPU for example.
Normally at 1080p, an R9 Fury X would perform slightly above an RX580 8GB and it would normally extend that lead at 4K, provided required data can be supplied to the GPU by the 4GB of HBM quickly enough i.e. "there is enough VRAM".
Looking up a performance review for the game here:
Forza Horizon 4 Benchmarked - TechSpot
The RX 580 is performing much better than an R9 Fury X and the RX Vega 64 is perfoming unusually well.
Question is why?
Is it ...
(A). AMD don't bother optimizing the game for R9 Fury X gpus any more and they don't care about them.
(B). The 4GB of HBM is choking performance (I will accept that at argument at 4k, but I think it should be enough at 1080p).
(C). There is some particular feature or improvement in the RX580/GCN 4.0 architecture that is particulary better than R9 Fury X.
(D). The game was coded primarily for XBOX One X Console and that GPU (Scorpio) is mostly Polaris GCN4.0 + "an RX580".
(E). RX580/Vega have better DX12 implementation.
(F). Vega GPU's make use of FP16 (I find this very unlikely since XBOX One X does not support FP16). I think using FP16 on the game would have been announced though.
(G) there is a bug in the R9 Fury X driver.
(H). All of the above.
Installed Adrenalin 18.10.2 No difference. 1080p result here:
The benchmark resulkts seem to indicate the CPU is fine.
Adrenalin 18.10.2 No difference. 4K result, everything OC'ed to the limit of stability comparison here:
I think i7-4790K at 20% OC, 4core 8thread is still pretty representative of a good gaming CPU.
I understand the above benchmark link is running their R9 Fury X with the best performing and in reality available gaming CPU from Intel, the Core i7-8700K 6 Core 12 thread.
The FPS numbers are better with the i7-8700K, but even so, I think the R9 Fury X should be running much faster than this.
FYI the Fury X is performing fine on other gaming titles and also it has a Push Pull fan configuration on the Radiatior and both fans are running maxed out so I can't do much more to keep it cool and fast. Fan noise is pretty loud when I run the above benchmarks.
Hi, thanks for responding. HBM: The 4GB Question - The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
Knowing exactly how much video memory is used/needed by the GPU in a game/application is difficult to know unless I would be able to run a detailed debug/analisys tool as a the programmer/code performance analyst. It's a matter of can the correct input data be delivered to the GPU quickly enough to be processed, as far as I understand it, not simply how much is stored directly in VRAM on the GPU. Some games / applications will simply load as much data into VRAM from System RAM as possible, texture files etc even if they are needed or not, and fill the VRAM to just under 3GB, 4GB or 8GB, or whatever. OK it's on the VRAM and ready to be used if needed, but, as long as the application (& drivers) are written to manage what data is required, and make sure it gets into the Vram quickly enough from System RAM, the application/game should run well enough. There is an article discussing the 4GB of HBM on R9 Fury X here: HBM: The 4GB Question - The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
I have been surprised at how well the R9 FuryX/Nanos can run at true 4K or 4K Virtual Super Resolution settings on numerous games. I regularly run BF1 at 4K Ultra in DX12 MultiGPU. That runs fine mostly 50-60 FPS on an R9 FuryX/Nano runinng at +5% OC with i7-4790K clocked at +15% (~ 4.6GHz on core 1and 2 cores and 4.5GHz when running 3, 4 cores.
In addition I have tested and run things like Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 6GB Ultra HD texture pack which is supposed to require 6GB of VRAM minimum.
It runs fine on a Sapphire HD 7970OC 6GB or an R9 FuryX or R9 Nano with 4GB of HBM, benchmarking / running at same FPS as without use of that texture pack.
Wheras a R9 280x (a refresh version of the HD7970 OC, not a rebrand with 3GB of VRAM) or a GTX780Ti with 3GB of Vram simply cannot handle it and runs at very low, unusable FPS.
I took a quick look yesterday to see how my oldest Nvidia GPU I still use regularly, an Asus GTX780Ti 3GB OC Direct CUII + i7-4770K clocked at 4.6GHz on all 4 cores ran with an Nvidia Driver from ~ end December 2017 (I will update the exact details later - the machine is busy running rendering) behaved with Forza4 Horizon. The Nvidia drivers used are not specifically optimized for the game. I was using the Nvidia equivalent of Virtual Super Resolution to render and run the benchmark at 4K on a '1080p 60Hz' panel). I recored what happens/ how it performs with the 4K Ultra Benchmark, and they were quite good in terms of FPS compared to the R9 Fury X. The GTX 780Ti It was not as fast, but it was not that far behind, given the driver is unoptimized for Forza 4 Horizon, and the GPU was not overclocked at all. The benchmark runs and then before 33% progress a warning is flashed up on the screen regarding VRAM capacity. The benchmark crashes shortly afterwards.
I will upload that video running on a GTX780Ti with that old driver and point you to it if you wish.
I see no such VRAM capacity warning running with the R9 FuryX or Nano during the benchmark or running the game demo.
I could also see if there is a new Nvidia driver optimized for Forza 4 Horizon and install that and run that on a GTX780Ti.
I could look at overclocking the GTX780Ti and see if that improves it's FPS performance.
I could also remove a PCIeSSD from the third PCIex16 slot on that machine so I can run the secondary R9 Nano at PCIe3.0x8 speed so I give a fair comparison of those 2 air cooled GPU running with same i7-4770K CPU at same OC.
All of the above would take me time of course, but if it helps investigate and improve R9 Fury X / Nano performance then I will see what I can do.
Regarding VRAM capacity - please look at this 4K benchmark result I referred to above at the following link: Forza Horizon 4 Benchmarked - TechSpot
Those numbers are completely independent of me.
Please compare the 12GB GTX Titan X to the 6GB 980Ti to the RX 5808GB to the R9 FuryX 4GB to the RX 580 4GB ...etc.
If the game really needed say, 6GB of VRAM capaciity, and absolutely could not get data from system RAM into the GPU VRAM and presented for processing by the GPU unless the 6GB of data was sitting ready in the VRAM, then, I would expect those cards with 4GB of VRAM capacity to run at much lower speeds, and for the GTX1060 6GB to significantly outperform an RX5804GB card for example:
I save this now and add some more info next.
