The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Is Currently A Disaster On Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: The AMD Radeon R9 Fury Is Currently A Disaster On Linux

When AMD announced the Radeon R9 Fury line-up powered by the "Fiji" GPU with High Bandwidth Memory, I was genuinely very excited to get my hands on this graphics card. The tech sounded great and offered up a lot of potential, and once finally finding an R9 Fury in stock, shelled out nearly $600 for this graphics card. Unfortunately though, thanks to the current state of the Catalyst Linux driver, the R9 Fury on Linux is a gigantic waste for OpenGL workloads. The R9 Fury results only exemplifies the hideous state of AMD's OpenGL support for their Catalyst Linux driver with a NVIDIA graphics card costing $200 less consistently delivering better gaming performance.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21943

[dungeon]

As the results show, the Radeon R9 Fury Linux performance is awful when it comes to OpenGL performance with the latest Catalyst driver...It's as simple as that.

It is not simple as that - results are a bit more biased then a expect, my Micheal... nearly all games you tested have nvidia variabile in game scripts and not a single game (other then tesseract i think) has fglrx profile. Unigine clearly shows where GPU is, those has profiles. Disaster? Well, no

Please test TF2 and openarena

[d2kx]

Meanwhile Catalyst 15.7.1 is out for Windows and includes a new Counter-Strike: GO profile with further performance improvements. I am not even kidding.

[Michael]

Results are a bit biased my Micheal... nearly all games you tested have nvidia variabile in game scripts and not a single game (other then tesseract i think) has fglrx profile. Unigine shows where GPU is, those has profiles.

Please test TF2 and openarena

They're all the real, upstream games.

OpenArena doesn't run at 4K at least on Catalyst, kept trying yesterday / this morning but it hangs on loading. Though will run at 2560x, but seems there's some issue with it or ioquake3 for 4K.

[nirvanix]

If you already new the deplorable state of catalyst open gl on linux then why did you buy the card to run with the linux catalyst driver and write yet another article like hundreds of others stating the same thing over and over and over like some trailer park princess?

I run mesa/amd on my linux setup because it's open source and superior to the nvidia mesa. If I was stricly into 3d gaming on linux I'd do something different.

[Michael]

If you already new the deplorable state of catalyst open gl on linux then why did you buy the card to run with the linux catalyst driver and write yet another article like hundreds of others stating the same thing over and over and over like some trailer park princess?

I run mesa/amd on my linux setup because it's open source and superior to the nvidia mesa. If I was stricly into 3d gaming on linux I'd do something different.

There will always be people asking how AMD XYZ video card is on Linux...

[mum1989]

Thanks for this article

[duby229]

I don't think anybody in their right mind could say they didn't expect this. Micheal is absolutely right about one thing, it;s not a hardware problem, it's a Catalyst problem. Although I don't put too much weight on 3d performance as I do on over all usability. Desktop responsiveness and and video playback quality are more important to me, and that is where Catalyst is even worse.

[agd5f]

How is this a disaster? It's an improvement over the R9 290 and performs at or near the top on a bunch of the tests. Easy on the hyperbole.

[arunbupathy]

I really appreciate all the time and money spent in writing these articles. But the title gives the impression that Fury fares much worse than other AMD hardware. After seeing the numbers, I don't think so. It is just the same issues with Catalyst that is reflected here. Given the state of AMD's drivers, the numbers are more or less as I expected, and I didn't expect to see miracles with Fury either!