I did get a long life out of my 7950 and 7970. No complaints and the drivers were never an issue either, at least pre-Wattman. It wasn't until Battlefield 1 that I ran into a game they could no longer play. I only got a year out of my RX 580 before I outgrew it. Never had a Fiji or Nano but their lesser brothers were darn fine cards too even without the higher bandwidth memory.
so far i have 12 months into this RX 480 pending the RTX 2080 taking over
never was able to get my R9 Fury to work on my X570, it does work on the X470 which is bizzare
Out of curiosity on those Fiji vs later GPUs test, I would be curious if you would get the same results with current drivers vs old drivers. I always thought that the Wattman drivers killed performance on my 7950 and they got worse not better as time went on.
colesdav there's an interesting challenge for you since you still have a Fury X, run 3DMark11 (that's free now), on it with drivers a few months after release and current drivers. I say 3DMark11 because to my knowledge AMD and nVidia both still spend time optimizing drivers for it.
I own 3DMark with all possible options..
Please take a look at my 3D Mark Firestrike Scores here:
AMD Red Team 3DMark Scoreboard
I already looked at the Fury X drivers and HBM Overclocking versus "current" drivers for those tests.
The FireStrike scores is #2 because it is limited by the Ryzen 2700X undervolted and tuned to run at 4.3 - 4.4 GHz.
The RAM is only running at 3200MHz.
If I get a Zen3 I will rerun the Quad Fury X scores again, and I should be able to improve all scores.
Best perfoming FuryX Drivers were Pre- Vega 56/64 release and pre-removal of HBM overclocking.
AMD Crimson ReLive 16.12.2 driver was the last one that actually worked with HBM overclocking on Fury X.
It was completely disabled in later drivers. .
I ran those results ~ November 2019 I think... so that would have been comparing to 19.11.1 drivers.
I will try to look again at Fury X driver performance again some time in future.
Right now all of my PC with R9 Fury X are stuck on 19.12.1 drivers for blender use.
I think that is what we are asking is what is the performance difference between those early 16.12.2 drivers and the current ones.
Yes I understand.
I just do not have time to run the comparison right now.
The 16.12.2 drivers were O(5%) faster than 19.11.1 on single R9 Fury X.
I wasn't expecting you too. I was just curious myself. I think we just know you are really in to testing stuff and appreciate your contributions in that area. I am sure we both understand you don't need or have to test that. It really doesn't matter as it is quickly becoming irrelevant outside of compute functions.
Just that information between the 16x and 19x and the drop I saw with the 2020 drivers, my guesstimate would be nearing a 10% decline in speed over time.
I will test the FuryX on 16.12.2 versus 20.5.1 or next driver for you.
I am interested myself to see it.
It is just I have machines with multiple R9 Fury GPUs running flat out for Blender work I am doing and I keep everything on Adrenalin 19.12.1 driver.
Adrenalin 2020 interface is a complete and utter car crash for MultiGPU and in my case I have the additional complication that some of my PCs are running R9 Nanos and R9 Fury cards on eGPU over Thundebolt 2 and 3. None of that is working in Adrenalin 2020 either.
I have been running FireStrike tests on RX Vega Liquid with my default DX11 and DX12 HBM2 overclock with Adrenalin 19.12.1 + 20.5.1 drivers to compare those results with PowerColor Red Dragon RX5700XT. I will post those results later. I think they are a more interesting set of data.
It's awesome if you do but if you really don't have time it is not necessary. I was just curious as others have been if Fiji cards really just died because of architecture or abandonment in the drivers.