Let me rephrase that: No, we didn't do any manual undervolting, what MSI Afterburner does "behind the curtains" automatically is a different thing.
AMD Vega Hardware Reviews
- Thread starter ArkeoTP
- Start date
Wolfenstein is realy polygon and drawcall driven:
Shows that Vegas front end is big enough?
Shows that Vegas front end is big enough?
Bondrewd
Veteran
It's the same size as the one in Hawaii/Fiji.
It have the same size of geometry engines, but the engines are totaly different. Now you have Draw Stream Rasterizer, another Setup of AC Units and some more. What i finde intresting ist that AMDs Vega have the Same Performance at the front end like GP102 with 2 Geometry engines more.
Bondrewd
Veteran
But it doesn't?
Occasionally. For private use, I do try this with all my graphics cards.
Half a billion triangles per secons is laughable for modern graphics chips in the three-digit price range. More important is, what is done with all these tris. If I can early discard 95 % of them before being shaded, then hey, throw ten times the number at my Vega.
Discarging is a week Point at Vega without primitive shader -.- Thats why i'm asking for. If it Comes i think we will see a huge benefit.
@Rys
Maybe you can say us when primitive shader will come?
Why? Because games render tons of triangles that contribute nothing to the scene?
Rys's work is devrel, IIRC, even if he knows the answer it's not going to be his department to announce unannounced things on forums.
Sometimes. Open-world games can have huge overdraw from vegetation and stuff like that.
Primitive shaders won't help you there. Will a primitive shader rasterize triangle to figure out if all its pixels are covered to determine that it doesn't need to rasterize?
It has been said by AMD very specifically what this tech is able to cull. Yet even here on a 3D tech forum we continue to have this magical ideas...
No but shader power is used for culling. I think the main Problem from Vega is that a lot of shader power is uesed for culling
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3010-primitive-discarding-in-vega-with-mike-mantor
No but open world have a lot of hidden triangles, or triangles which are smaller than a Pixel.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3010-primitive-discarding-in-vega-with-mike-mantor
Last edited by a moderator:
Bondrewd
Veteran
Isn't shade once supposed to eliminate overdraw?
Also isn't it currently disabled?
I wonder what parts of Vega *actually* do work right now.
Again: how do you determine that your 3 vertices will produce a hidden triangle without rasterizing it? You can check depth at 3 vertices and see that they are behind already rendered geometry. Does this mean you can discard the triangle? No! A number of pixels inside the triangle can still be visible because only the 3 samples at vertices positions are hidden. Can you discard a triangle whose 3 vertices are all of screen? Again no! One vertex to the left, one to the right and one above. Your triangle can still cover your entire screen with pixels.
Yes, you can compute that a triangle will not cover a single sample and then you can reject them. Games do use LOD though. You don't render 1 million triangle model 10 miles off. Unless stuff is done badly in game...
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3010-primitive-discarding-in-vega-with-mike-mantor
Thats the key function of primitive shader
What's with the attitude?
Anyway, TBDRs have been throwing away all opaque overdraw since the 1990s. It's quite possible to do.
Infinisearch
Veteran
Primitive shaders are not TBDR. Also TBDR's haven't been throwing away all opaque overdraw since the 90's. In their simplest form they just take advantage of on chip bandwidth (speeding up overdraw), at there best they reduce the number of shader invocations by deferring shading work until visibility is determined.
Also @MDolenc do you see any practical performance benefit from primitive shaders? If not, why?
edit - also if you don't think so then why did AMD bother with them?
Last edited:
Similar threads
