Nvidia just launched the new Kepler Maximus workstation and AMD has already launched their new FirePro line http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Caters- ... U-Refresh/
On paper the new GCN architecture-based card looks good but has a big flaw - drivers. And i don't believe that customers who pay up to $4000 really care for those issues. The top card is way more powerful than the bottom card but the performance does not scale. http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMDs-New ... ro/?page=8
There are, however, too many places where AMD's scaling fails (or even moves backwards) to pin the problem on ROP count. If ROPs were the limiting factor, we'd expect to see scaling that was significantly influenced by clock rate and fill rate. The W9000's typical speed gain of 11% is far below its 34% clock rate improvement.
In the old days, we might've said this was an OpenGL optimization problem, but the SPEC 3DS Max test runs in Direct 3D. Even if we were willing to accept that Fermi is just that much better than GCN in professional applications, that wouldn't explain why AMD's latest $4000 GPU doesn't significantly outpace its own $650 cousin. Tests like Creo clearly show the benefit of the newer architecture, but it's virtually the only one that does.
It's possible that AMD's pro graphics drivers need much more work to wring all of the performance out of the GCN architecture, that some of the applications we tested are older versions that don't take proper advantage of GCN, or that Nvidia has simply better exploited its relationships with the major software ISV's. As of this writing, Sunnyvale has been silent as to why its brand-new FirePro cards can't keep up with two year-old hardware from Nvidia, or what it intends to do about it. The company's silence on these issues is as troubling as the fact that they exist.
we found the W8000 and W9000's performance disappointing, and their proposed price/performance ratio isn't so hot either. If AMD had kept to its previous price structure, the W9000 would've slipped in nicely at $2500 and the W8000 at $1149. At $4000 and $1600 against the Quadro 6000 (also $4000) and the Quadro 5000 ($1849) though, AMD's prospects at this time aren't very good. The situation may change with future driver revisions if AMD is able to wring more performance from the GCN architecture in professional applications, but the current state of the software is what it is and the W8000 and W9000's performance didn't scale as expected.
According to the review, a failure and premium-priced to boot
To be completely fair, it is fixable perhaps with drivers. The new architecture does spectacularly well with ONE application. If AMD can somehow devote resources to their drivers, there is hope. But i have to question the business decision of releasing a professional product (early and unoptimized) based on a implied promise of a better future - it's like what AMD does with their graphics cards but i doubt the professional customers will buy it.
The way things currently stack up with these new pro graphics cards, AMD's sales and marketing departments are writing checks that this hardware cannot cash. While it's true that the FirePro W9000 and W8000 can push a great many displays, the fact is, you don't buy a $4000 GPU because you need to drive six monitors. And none of the ancillary benefits of these cards are quite good enough to compensate for their current performance.
... For now, it's difficult to recommend either the W9000 or W8000 for general 3D modeling in any application other than PTC Creo 2.0. In that program and usage model, the W9000 may well be a fabulous deal. For everything else, we'd recommend a close look at the V7900 and keeping an eye on the evolving situation with the crop of new professional cards coming to market from both camps.