Speculation: GPU Performance Comparisons of 2020 *Spawn*

Status
Not open for further replies.
No one made this claim.
The claim is Ampere's very high FP32 throughput may never result in significantly higher performance in future games because the architecture isn't designed to use all that throughput in games anyway (e.g. it can't really do 30 TFLOPs unless the TMUs, ROPs, geometry processors, etc. are unused).
And just like Vega 10 was a chip developed to compete in too many market segments (gaming + productivity + compute), Ampere / GA102 might have also been developed to increase nvidia's competitiveness on non-CUDA compute workloads, which was apparently nothing to right home about compared to Vega.

Ampere is using all of these FP32 flops. Thats the reason why a RTX3080 is 60%+ faster than a 2080S and 30%+ faster than a 2080TI. Crunching through compute workload to offset other limitations.
 
No one made this claim.
The claim is Ampere's very high FP32 throughput may never result in significantly higher performance in future games because the architecture isn't designed to use all that throughput in games anyway (e.g. it can't really do 30 TFLOPs unless the TMUs, ROPs, geometry processors, etc. are unused).
And just like Vega 10 was a chip developed to compete in too many market segments (gaming + productivity + compute), Ampere / GA102 might have also been developed to increase nvidia's competitiveness on non-CUDA compute workloads, which was apparently nothing to right home about compared to Vega.
I think you mean, developed to improve their competitive on CUDA compute workloads at the expense of non-CUDA compute workloads.
It still helps, but just in FP32 workloads that are shader bound, you're going to see great speed ups there.
But yea, R7 is sick in non-gaming workloads. Just library support needs to be there.

hmm regardless though, wrt to the topic of not having a supporting front end to the compute, it looks like a hard chasm to cross wrt the traditional front end without a ridiculous amount of bandwidth to support it and thus a steep increase in costs.
 
Ampere is using all of these FP32 flops. Thats the reason why a RTX3080 is 60%+ faster than a 2080S and 30%+ faster than a 2080TI. Crunching through compute workload to offset other limitations.

There's absolutely no proof the RTX3080 ever reaches 30 TFLOPs when rendering a game, and that's most probably a false statement.

I think you mean, developed to improve their competitive on CUDA compute workloads at the expense of non-CUDA compute workloads.
If you're talking about Turing then you might be right.
 
There's absolutely no proof the RTX3080 ever reaches 30 TFLOPs when rendering a game, and that's most probably a false statement.
Since this seem to be such a hard thing to grasp for some:

2080 has 10 TFLOPS + 10 TeraInt32OPS - that's 20 teraOPS in total.
3080 has 30 TFLOPS.

If we have a game which is 50/50 math between FP32 and INT32 then what is the maximum theoretical performance gain in it between 2080 and 3080? And does it mean that Ampere "reaches 30 TFLOPs when rendering" such game?
 
Ampere is using all of these FP32 flops. Thats the reason why a RTX3080 is 60%+ faster than a 2080S and 30%+ faster than a 2080TI. Crunching through compute workload to offset other limitations.

And in certain games like Doom Eternal and Crysis Remastered, those advanced engines really do take advantage of Ampere's FP32 TFLOPs.
Less carefully optimized / architected games will likely run up against other limits first.

Example from Crysis Remastered with their software RT solution running entirely on the shaders:
https://www.purepc.pl/test-wydajnosci-crysis-remastered-czy-mi-pojdzie-zalezy-co-masz?page=0,14

The 3080 manages to be +50% over the 2080Ti and more than +100% over the 2080 Super.
 
If you're talking about Turing then you might be right.
hmm I might be missing something here. I thought you were trying to parallel Vega/RVII and Ampere together. Vega/R7 then later became CDNA and AMD introduced RDNA to compete with game workloads.
 
And in certain games like Doom Eternal and Crysis Remastered, those advanced engines really do take advantage of Ampere's FP32 TFLOPs.
Less carefully optimized / architected games will likely run up against other limits first.

Example from Crysis Remastered with their software RT solution running entirely on the shaders:
https://www.purepc.pl/test-wydajnosci-crysis-remastered-czy-mi-pojdzie-zalezy-co-masz?page=0,14

The 3080 manages to be +50% over the 2080Ti and more than +100% over the 2080 Super.
Crysis Remastered raytracing uses RT-cores on NVIDIA
 
Except clocks affect compute and texture/pixel fillrate throughput, which you used in your post to try to prove that Vega is more broken than Ampere and worse than Polaris.
Your own comparison is what made it relevant.

Yeah, that was far from my point, keep trying. My point was actually that contrary to claims being made that just like Ampere, Vega also had "too much FP32", so it could just be "fixed" by increasing FP32 usage. that is sadly not true at all. All metrics in Vega increased by the same amount of 2x. Trying to hilariously argue about 5% differences in clocks doesn't change that fact. Ampere has a disproportionate amount of FP32 and FP32 only and an increase in that usage will undoubtely increase game performance.
 
keep trying

ModEdit: language


This 30TF GPU wont get any worse by trying to create theories that NV is lying or making things up etc. In the end though, those 30TF's (or 36 in 3090s case) are as much worth as 30TF's of RDNA2. They pretty much align there as someone noted in this thread. Turing isnt the same thing though.

Ampere is one of the biggest leaps so far, reaching 30TF of compute power for the 3080. We are not even talking about ray tracing here, or even DLSS. Its also introducing GDDR6X speeds close to 800GB/s and more. They also lowered prices. AMD will counter with close enough products (their crusing Zen2 with their Zen3 cpus already) with their Navi2 lineup, closing in on Amperes TF metrics (25+). Everyone happy, or, 99% of pc gamers atleast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All cards mentioned have RT cores.
Yes, point was that it's not necessarily the FP32 power that's driving the results, they have not only more but faster RT-cores too.

Dont understand why he does, hes getting his ass handed lol. This 30TF GPU wont get any worse by trying to create theories that NV is lying or making things up etc. In the end though, those 30TF's (or 36 in 3090s case) are as much worth as 30TF's of RDNA2. They pretty much align there as someone noted in this thread. Turing isnt the same thing though.

Ampere is one of the biggest leaps so far, reaching 30TF of compute power for the 3080. We are not even talking about ray tracing here, or even DLSS. Its also introducing GDDR6X speeds close to 800GB/s and more. They also lowered prices. AMD will counter with close enough products (their crusing Zen2 with their Zen3 cpus already) with their Navi2 lineup, closing in on Amperes TF metrics (25+). Everyone happy, or, 99% of pc gamers atleast.
Huh? What theories? Who?
No-one has suggested in any imaginable way any that NVIDIA would be lying.
 
Yes, point was that it's not necessarily the FP32 power that's driving the results, they have not only more but faster RT-cores too.
So you're saying that s/w based RT in Crysis Remastered is limited by BVH traversal performance? I.e. the h/w part which this solution isn't even targeting since it's a s/w one in its basis?
If that would be the case shouldn't we have seen something along the lines of 2080 being 4x-6x faster than 1080Ti there?
 
So you're saying that s/w based RT in Crysis Remastered is limited by BVH traversal performance? I.e. the h/w part which this solution isn't even targeting since it's a s/w one in its basis?
If that would be the case shouldn't we have seen something along the lines of 2080 being 4x-6x faster than 1080Ti there?
I have no clue what other things affect performance and how much, but according to Crytek Crysis Remastered uses hardware acceleration on RTX cards
 
Has that been implemented yet?
According to this interview yes
https://wccftech.com/crysis-remaste...mance-boost-dlss-coming-later-with-an-update/
With PCs (on both existing NVIDIA RTX and soon-to-be-launched AMD GPUs) and next-gen consoles featuring hardware support for ray tracing, do you plan to take advantage of this for Crysis Remastered and generally for CryEngine at some point?

[TM] Hardware-assisted ray tracing is planned for the next CRYENGINE release and is already available in the PC version of Crysis Remastered.
 
I have no clue what other things affect performance and how much, but according to Crytek Crysis Remastered uses hardware acceleration on RTX cards
Great. All cards mentioned are RTX cards. If this game would be limited by RT h/w - which would be really weird considering that it targets GPUs without one - we would be seing something akin to what we're seeing in pure path tracing workloads between GPUs with and without RT h/w.
 
I have no clue what other things affect performance and how much, but according to Crytek Crysis Remastered uses hardware acceleration on RTX cards

Look at the difference in performance between RTX2080 Super and Vega 64. Does it look like RTX2080 is using RT cores when it is not that much faster than Vega 64? That tells you that at least RTX 2**** cards are not using RT cores in that benchmark. If all settings are the same then RTX3*** aren't either.
 
The chart clearly says DX11 at the top. The game might support hardware acceleration under DX12/Vulkan, but it can't possibly be using it in DX11.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top