AquaMark3 (tm) (r) (patent pending) ...

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Kristof, Jun 23, 2003.

  1. Kristof

    Regular Alpha

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Abbots Langley
    New pdf with some details :

    http://ds1.jowood.at/aquamark3/am3-technical-med.pdf

    Erhmm... IIRC the old Intel GPT allowed you to do all these things (or similar) on any application.

    And I am worried about this :

    I hope they don't intend to :

    1) Start Timer
    2) Send scene to hardware
    3) Lock frame
    4) Stop Timer when lock succeeds

    The above would completely stop any parallellism and would hurt performance and give completely unrealistic performance numbers.

    All in "my own humble personal opinion of course..." (tm) (r) (patent pending) :roll:

    K-
     
  2. nelg

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Toronto
    Wouldn't that also skew results insofar as not being able to determine how effecient the driver is at dividing up work between the GPU and CPU :?:
     
  3. NeARAZ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kaunas, LT
    Can't they do:

    1) start CPU timer
    2) do physics/AI/etc.
    3) stop CPU timer

    And, erm..., subtract the CPU time from the average time it takes to render the whole frame :)
     
  4. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Of course it would only hurt performance much on deferred renderers as IMRs don't have much inter-frame-parallelism. :wink:
    If they do as you suggest, they only measure latency, not throughput. But that can be solved by rendering the same scene (-> low CPU utilization ) 50 or 100 times before locking the frame buffer.
     
  5. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    No, because the GPU renders in parallel. So (time per frame) - (time for physics/AI) != (time it takes the GPU to render the scene)
     
  6. NeARAZ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kaunas, LT
    That's why I said "average"... So the time includes the driver work, the 3D API runtime work, and the time that you're waiting if the GPU is lagging behind (eg. the renderqueue is full, or you are already several frames ahead).
    I guess raw "GPU benchmark" can't be done in straight way, as there's no means to run timer on the GPU...
     
  7. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    But taking the average doesn't change anything. Imagine your benchmark is running 60 seconds, and your CPU timing tells you that 59s are spent on AI/physics. So there's one second for render calls and the OS/other applications. But that could mean the graphics card needs anything between 1s and 60s to actually render the frames.
     
  8. Dio

    Dio
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,758
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    UK
    Actually, there is a lot of intraframe parallelism in most apps.

    The main reason for this is that primitives tend to come along in groups in which they are quite alike - so because of this, each group tends to hit one particular bottleneck inside the hardware. Only when you have plenty of groups in flight does the hardware get the best opportunity to absorb bottlenecks by taking up the slack.
     
  9. overclocked

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,317
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Sweden
    Is the benchmark gonna use DX9 pixelshader?
     
  10. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    156
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    With interframe parallelism I meant transforming/binning geometry of one frame while rendering another frame like a deferred renderer can do.

    Of course there is intraframe parallelism. You have a lot of low-level parallelism (multiple pipelines, several objects in a pipeline at once) and parallelism between multiple functional units separated by caches (VS, triangle setup, PS). But the hardware/driver is usually not going to reorder
    the given tasks if, for example, you first render some screen-sized polys (PS limited) and then some pixel-sized polys (VS/triangle setup limited).
     
  11. kmolazz

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Portugal
  12. MfA

    MfA
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,297
    Likes Received:
    657
    Why not just do this measurement with a null driver for the graphics card for avgFPS CPU, and a trace of rendering calls for avgFPS GFX?
     
  13. Ailuros

    Ailuros Epsilon plus three
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    187
    Location:
    Chania
    How about they concentrate on creating a game worth playing for a change? :shock:
     
  14. micron

    micron Diamond Viper 550
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    U.S.
    I agree. Aquanox was a beautiful, smooth playing game. Too bad it had no depth.....
     
  15. Ailuros

    Ailuros Epsilon plus three
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    187
    Location:
    Chania
    That´s actually an oxymoron, considering it takes place under water :lol:
     
  16. Himself

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oooh, that's deep. :)
     
  17. g__day

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    Love the engine - hate the game!
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...