Fetch need Primitive shader for working or is it different ( called smart primitive on the slide ) .. ? if DSBR is not enabled ( or only case by case and rare case now ), i dont see how it can change ( and vice versa if primitive shader are not active too )
AMD Vega 10, Vega 11, Vega 12 and Vega 20 Rumors and Discussion
Fetch need Primitive shader for working or is it different ( called smart primitive on the slide ) .. ? if DSBR is not enabled ( or only case by case and rare case now ), i dont see how it can change ( and vice versa if primitive shader are not active too )
That would depend on whether one believes the energy 01 subtest that appears to have DSBR enabled to some extent also has primitive shaders.
At least in theory, the two features could be orthogonal. However, they can have synergies or might have additional ways internally to have a direct influence.
Primitive shaders exist in the vertex process step, and at a minimum include better culling before hitting the fixed-function primitive culling and primitive setup.
It generally appears as if the binning rasterizer exists to consume primitives set up for rasterization, which is part of the stage primitive shaders would be sending data to, or the DSBR is more fully on other side of that stage.
The DSBR's capacity for binning is very limited based on the number of primitives and their related state, so whatever methods are taken earlier to keep the amount of unnecessary work getting to the binning stage would help.
Perhaps there could be internal hooks or future optimizations that could allow programmable stages to better inform the binning/rasterization processes of relevant state changes or better handle context management.
In Energy-01 vega was as fast as P6000/TitanX(p)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Titan...Frontier-Edition-Nvidia-Pro-Features-1234729/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Radeo...6623/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-1235445/3/
I was going by scores from http://www.storagereview.com/nvidia_quadro_p6000_review.
That has AMD's energy score above the P5000, but below the P6000.
Thank you 3dilettant for the link.
In this German page you find benchmark of newer CAD Versions. What's interesting is that Vega outperform p6000 in wireframe. I think wireframes are Polygo heavy?
http://www.tomshardware.de/vega-ben...ngsaufnahme-gaming,testberichte-242375-6.html
In this German page you find benchmark of newer CAD Versions. What's interesting is that Vega outperform p6000 in wireframe. I think wireframes are Polygo heavy?
http://www.tomshardware.de/vega-ben...ngsaufnahme-gaming,testberichte-242375-6.html
One "footnote" on the benchmark for CAD software, they are purely indicative and not mean to be a direct comparaison on hardware but more a base.. scores can differ widely from a system, configuration, OS ..and the scene used are offtly not much a good comparaison depending the work you do with the CAD software.. They are offtly not much reflecting last update of the softwares.... ( rarely using the last addition on the softwares and rarely using the last optimization and are offtly old scene or situations more or less obsolete ). So it is a bit a complicated game when we try use thoses benchmark as pure reference ( i mean for office who work in CAD ).. Hence why we offtly have our own test routing.
Some Linux distro, who are completely empty of just the minimum needed for make work one specific software , can bring 10 to 25% difference for the time needed for a render scene with CUDA and OpenCL vs windows ( let alone OSX ) ( 25% on an non optimized windows .)
Some Linux distro, who are completely empty of just the minimum needed for make work one specific software , can bring 10 to 25% difference for the time needed for a render scene with CUDA and OpenCL vs windows ( let alone OSX ) ( 25% on an non optimized windows .)
Last edited:
Are you referring to the Creo 3.0 wireframe test?
I'm not familiar with what that test does differently compared to some of the others. The Beyond3d suite tests for Vega FE showed that it could be competitive or better than the competition in the non-culled and mixed scenarios. The big difference appeared to be in the fully culled cases. Perhaps the workstation test was able to provide a more favorable mix.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Regarding the 17.10 driver that boosted Shadow of War performance considerably, Now it turns out that was a bug in the driver that didn't enable Ultra settings and only settled for High, PGH retested and modified their article. In fact the new driver didn't bring any performance improvements at all.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...erde-Schatten-des-Krieges-Benchmarks-1240756/
Anarchist4000
Veteran
The funny part about "magic" drivers is that anything beyond 5-10%, maybe 15%, would be a fantasy. Greater than 20% seems to be becoming a trend of late. That argument was also founded on Vega competing with 1080ti, which we've already seen without all the features enabled.
Infinisearch
Veteran
What is it competitive with the 1080ti in?
Bondrewd
Veteran
Is there anything magical about enabling marketed uArch features?
Bondrewd
Veteran
How the name of the company is in any way relevant to enabling what was advertised (to some degree, that is).
Are there options in those games to turn off instruction prefetching and compare? How is it you know the performance is a result of that?
Would Vega's instruction prefetch be different than the instruction prefetch mentioned for Polaris?
Why would instruction prefetching favor two driving games in specific? Where are the gains for the hundreds of other modern PC games people play?
