Thanks for the clarification about the GCP performance not changing with more powerfull cards. I always thought the GPC performance was associated with the card global performance power.
But if that is so, then we also know general console games are not GCP limited as PC versions get higher framerates on more powerfull rigs, meaning the bottleneck is elsewhere.
In this case, if GCP was the limiting factor, a better card would not bring any performance improvements.
Did I missunderstood?
I wouldn't link GCP performance to the performance of the GPU.
The GCP is meant to schedule work being sent to it, in times in which the GCP is overloaded perhaps that's a different discussion point. But like all things developers will trade off their available resources (in this case CPU) to reduce the load on the GCP( if that is actually a factor). Or increase pressure on the GCP to relieve pressure on the CPU.
There's an interplay of resource management between the CPU and GPU (when it comes to this). We've never really run into this problem before because I don't think DX11 APIs were capable of flooding the GCP before the CPU crapped out. But with low overhead and multithreaded draw calls we can for the first time, so I guess it depends on what the developer is going to try to do with their next set of games?
I think instead of looking at straight numbers, perhaps it's best to look at what more draw calls can unlock for a game, like we could have more different type of interaction with our games, because I think if I understand ti, the act of reducing draw calls also limits dynamism in a game, meaning it's easy to reduce draw calls in a scene, but at the cost of the scene being rather static. But with lots of draw calls available, I think you can have deforming terrain, or amor, or different ways to layer items on top of each other (in real time) which is something that is normally optimized out (if you are tight on draw call budget).
I think the assumption that a second GCP is needed only if the first one maxes out is likely incorrect. I think the assumption that just because you can flood a GCP means that the GPU will be able to schedule work better than well optimized delivered draw calls can be completely wrong. Mainly that there is _no_ detriment in performance to running multithreaded draw calls at the GPU level vs well optimized serially submitted ones. When in reality that may not be true at all.
The second assumption I wouldn't make it that the second GCP is only useful after the first is maxed out, I think that's likely also incorrect.
The third assumption I wouldn't make is that having a second GCP will overall schedule better than a single one. If that was true, and our resident leaker is correct, then there would be no reason for MS to keep it held, unless it actually negatively impacts performance - which then it would be a legitimate reason to keep it locked until games were designed to surpass some sort of draw call threshold where having 2 GCPs were more beneficial than say a single one (despite the negative impact).
