Rootax
Veteran
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?
It's what AMDMatt said.
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?
It literally has disabled uArch feature in need of surrounding software.There will not exist a magical driver. Vega is hardware limited, i say it without doubt. True GCN2 is far from us, still.
Oh? Any reference I missed?It's what AMDMatt said.
Forza 7 last I checked. That's with the latest Nvidia driver. It was out in front, but the driver release I'd consider to have made it competitive. Changing places a bit based on resolution, CPU, and average or min FPS. It's not clear any of the new uArch features have landed or to what degree.What is it competitive with the 1080ti in?
The implementation should be different with all the added caches to facilitate the higher clocks. HBCC potentially in play there as well. The practical difference however is unclear. Seems likely it evolved a bit as they iterated on the design, but Polaris may have received those changes as well.Would Vega's instruction prefetch be different than the instruction prefetch mentioned for Polaris?
Forza 7 last I checked. That's with the latest Nvidia driver. It was out in front, but the driver release I'd consider to have made it competitive. Changing places a bit based on resolution, CPU, and average or min FPS. It's not clear any of the new uArch features have landed or to what degree.
Oh? Any reference I missed?
And the 1080ti all at the same time! Amazing.With the latest drivers, Vega is competitive with the original 1080, depending on the resolution and settings.
If it's in ONE game it's not amazing at all, TBH. More like oddball fluke actually.And the 1080ti all at the same time! Amazing.
The GTX 1080 is the same speed as Vega 64 @1440p and @2160p in Forza 7, GTX 1080 Ti is at least 20% faster than this, So NO Vega 64 is not competitive with 1080Ti now, Only the 1080.And the 1080ti all at the same time! Amazing.
And the 1080ti all at the same time! Amazing.
simply because the 1080Ti results have not been updated with the last driversAnd the 1080ti all at the same time! Amazing.
Even with the drivers it would be competitive. Vega was 22% ahead of 1080ti and drivers added about that much for the 1080. That's not considering minimums either, where Vega was doing rather well.simply because the 1080Ti results have not been updated with the last drivers
Not necessarily, as async compute is designed to work around bottlenecks. If actual shading, or any limit, is less than half the overall work and not serially dependent without overlapping frames it will be fine. Compute tasks aren't using ROPs, TMUs, or primitive setup. Games are trending that direction. So any title favoring say 80%+ async compute, should scale by FLOPs and bandwidth.AMD would require lots of improvement in the card's base performance to be competitive with 1080Ti even if it were running at its advertised boost clocks. As it is now it's barely matching Fiji in clock-for-clock.
Yes, it is illegal for compute tasks to use atomics or work on images previously output by the rasterizer.Compute tasks aren't using ROPs, TMUs
Is this a joke? Once again the 1080 = Vega 64 averages and minimums, 1080Ti is higher than both.Even with the drivers it would be competitive. Vega was 22% ahead of 1080ti and drivers added about that much for the 1080. That's not considering minimums either, where Vega was doing rather well.
You're right about ROP's and primitive setup but TMU's you're wrong. You can sample a texture using samplelevel from a compute shader.Compute tasks aren't using ROPs, TMUs, or primitive setup.