D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1869393/Test ended with a crash on my 970GTX, is that normal? Just got a notification of official Windows 10 drivers being released, so installing those now.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1869393/Test ended with a crash on my 970GTX, is that normal? Just got a notification of official Windows 10 drivers being released, so installing those now.
p p p p pero... mis shaders Asincronos! Nooo!
There's really just one..Seriously, theres like 5 people stating the results show it works on nvidia...
You mean if he asked his higher-ups permission to disclose a bunch of development details, he was authorized to disclose some things and not authorized to disclose other things?!B) he already got consent to say somethings not others
Any easy explanation for a high level programmer *who doesnt work with graphic programming atm, but will be interested to do so in the future btw.
Could driver bugs be behind the Fiji GPU issues?
doesn't matter what the performance difference is if there is even a small amount doing async code, it is functional, its not about the end performance vs the different IHV's, its about is it capable or not, and it is capable. Serial path should always be the same or higher than doing it asynchronously if the variables are the same and if the processor is being tasked enough.
Lo siento! Hay mas cosas que disfrutar en la vida, no?
You mean if he asked his higher-ups permission to disclose a bunch of development details, he was authorized to disclose some things and not authorized to disclose other things?!
Shock!
Yes, provided that the perf info we have is correct and not some weird bench artifact. Which then raises another question, why is there almost no benefit in running async on Maxwell2 uarch? And in some cases performance loss as per Oxide.
If everything is working as it should, there is 30% or more of potential perf gain Nvidia wont be able to tap into. I'm taking 30% from what console devs are saying.
We have some evidence that 980Ti can't do async compute. Why not wait until there's a better variety of tests? Games should benefit substantially from D3D12 even without async compute.Now, all in all, how does this affect a gtx 980Ti? (Objectively speaking) Trying to decide ebtween fury X and this for longevity...
I discovered a mistake I made earlier.There's something really wrong with GCN alltogether in this test. Compute times are just horrible, and GPU usage is way too low (max 10% under compute). Well granted it's not benchmark made for pure performance.
I don't know what DMA copy you're referring to.Do you have take in count the DMA copy ? its what should handle the data mangement .
I don't know what DMA copy you're referring to.
I forgot about the 4x multiplier as well. The numbers didn't add up to something that felt intuitively right without that in place.I said the loop is 8 cycles. This is radically wrong. It's actually 40 cycles. The new version of CodeXL makes this clear (though there's a whopper of a bug) because it indicates the timings of instructions and points at something I totally forgot: a single work item runs each SIMD at 1/4 throughput over time. Whereas on NVidia a single work item should run at full throughput over time, because the SIMD width matches the work-group width.
The only thing I can discern is that no nVidia card is being capable of Async Compute in this test so far.
Wow, you guys can make simple things complicated, I thought it was obvious from the beginninga single work item runs each SIMD at 1/4 throughput over time