DX12 Performance Discussion And Analysis Thread

Discussion in 'Rendering Technology and APIs' started by A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. Alessio1989

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2015
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    291
    I do have any identical GPUs pair to test, but it could be interesting to know what cross node sharing tier support the various architectures, because AFR become interesting in DX12 when the coupling of the resources is at the minimum..
     
  2. Genotypical

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    11
    its one way to look at it. But we all know its not the right way. We know a nano is much slower than a fury x and making such a comparison would be dishonest. The nano is not meant to compete with the 980ti. You're not buying a nano if you can fit a 980ti/Fury X in your case (most likely). That might as well have compared 980ti cards only.

    We actually do not know how a fury x does against a 980ti above 1080p with the new drivers. One site tested at 1080p with new drivers, saw the 980ti barely ahead and all the other sites trumpeted some supposed switch in performance position. Then these guys test at 1440p, but oh... nano. Never mind they did all their other tests with a Fury X.

    The clock rate the nano reached should at least be mentioned. I'd love to know why they used a nano. It stood out as really strange
     
    drSeehas and firstminion like this.
  3. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,973
    Likes Received:
    1,656
     
  4. Genotypical

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    11
    So all they did was reuse old numbers from probably catalyst 15.8. Possibly old numbers for the fury x and the 980ti they aren't reviewing as well. Not malicious, just not thorough and liable to give people wrong ideas.
     
  5. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,973
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    I think you'll find this in most reviews, especially if you have to return the cards after the review. I have not yet heard of any tremendous performance increase when using newer drivers from any manufacturer. Most differences you'll likely see is reference vs factory OC'd models, with later reviews starting to use cards that the are inline with what most people purchase.
     
    Razor1 and Freemantle like this.
  6. Freemantle

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    19
    Frankly it's hard to argue Fury X is any better value either, speculating on case size is just a weak excuse too... but hey ho, this is a single alpha benchmark so it doesn't have to be right. If consumers want to base their opinions on it as you indicate then that is their problem.

    Presumably it was "up to 1000Mhz". Joking aside.... odd but no great conspiracy I suspect.

    As Pharma rightfully suggests, Fiji based cards are fairly mythical even now.
     
  7. Alessio1989

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2015
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    291
    sorry, typo -.-
     
  8. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Fury X does well if you aren't taking overclocking into account. TPU's latest review puts it at par with a ref. 980Ti at 1440p and 5% faster at 4k.

    It'd be interesting if AMD keep up the advantage that they've had in Battlefront beta with Fury X doing 15-25% better than 980Ti and it turns out to be a popular game. Many purchases are made on big games, 7970 lost out to 680 big time in BF3 and that surely hurt its sales despite having more powerful hardware and same vram advantage that 980Ti has.

    Newegg quick search seems to have many Fiji cards in stock. I guess the new refrain would be that they are not selling.

    Anyway, DX12 on Frostbite would be even more interesting considering their close relationship with AMD.
     
  9. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    You mean Starwars Battlefront? Last I remember the ti and fury x was virtually a tie or small edge to the Fury X by like 5% at 4k.

    The Frostbite engine is interesting but does it look like AMD has the chops to get engine companies to work for their cards more? So far Oxide hasn't been able to show any appreciable benefit from their marketing stunt.......

    No company in their right minds will cut off 80% of their potential market for the possibility to work exclusively for an IHV. This is more so with an engine company because 80% lose of maybe 10 licenses a year is practically everything.
     
  10. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    5,206
    Presumably next gen Nvidia cards would be better at this stuff. So if developers hold back in order to cater to IHV X or Y then future development gets stunted/delayed. Just because it's currently slow on Nvidia cards, doesn't mean developers shouldn't take advantage of it. Next gen it may end up faster than AMD at this stuff (see tessellation).

    Similar to how Nvidia heavily discouraged the use of DX 10.1 in games because their cards didn't have it. Then discouraged use of Dx11 in games until their cards caught up to the 5870. Which just delayed how long it was until games started to use Dx11. Similar with ATI at the time discouraging things from one of the subsets of DX9

    Regards,
    SB
     
  11. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    We had a thread on it.

    Anyway, AMD seem to be running away with performance in this game for now, and Fury X seems to be doing rather well in computerbase and gamegpu reviews with a lead of 20% and 27% respectively at 4k over 980Ti. Even the nano is faster in gamegpu review.

    https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1875582/

    Different from other Frosbite games though, BF4 being the big one runs quite better on nvidia's.

    As for Oxide, AMD were their usual self,

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1575638/...able-legends-dx12-benchmark/110#post_24475280
     
  12. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,973
    Likes Received:
    1,656
    Razor1 likes this.
  13. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    ComputerBase.de doesn't show that percentage at all, ok I see multiplayer 20% , which means nV has work to do on this game for Dx11 driver overhead, possibly but lets look more deeply at the numbers at different resolutions. Off the bat we should expect AMD to have better performance with their drivers at this stage because this is one of AMD's more important games. but even with a cursory look at these numbers something isn't adding up. something is bottle necking not just the 980 ti, or nV cards, they are also bottlenecking the Nano, only 7% faster than the 390X, during multiplayer. And at a lower resolution multiplayer seems to affect the Nano more than the other cards where its only 6% faster than a gtx 980.

    I wouldn't take the multiplayer benchmarks as testing graphics performance at all, because many things change in multiplayer that aren't related to graphics but only related to the CPU.


    Interesting finally they stated something relevant, I'm surprised, I would love to juxtapose his first statement to this own, he flip flopped lol. But I think I don't need it to its pretty obvious.
     
    firstminion likes this.
  14. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Multiplayer is the (only?)relevant part for this game. Perhaps nvidia could change it when the game releases. DX12 benches would look multiplayer improvements like Mantle.

    As for that oxide dev's flip-flopping, I'm not sure what you think he did so on. In his very first reply, he stated that nvidia were more involved than AMD was.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1569897/...ingularity-dx12-benchmarks/1200#post_24356995
     
  15. Ext3h

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    301
    Better let the Oxide case rest. The full story hasn't been disclosed yet, and you are not going to guess it correctly based on what has been published.

    Sorry, I've been asked not to spill the details either.
     
    pharma and Razor1 like this.
  16. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    Err, how are you going to use scientific methodology when things aren't the same? Magic? Those benchmarks aren't even giving us reasonable results comparing same IHV hardware across different segments, lets add more vendors in there to complicate the matter and call it good? No that isn't acceptable. Its one thing when you are forcing number of players to play in the same server and map, that stresses many things beyond the GPU, its stresses, the cpu, network, server, etc....., those benchmarks show us as a relevant testing for the other parts of the system based on possibly what the graphics card and its drivers are doing, but nothing that we can quantify in a meaningful way "the engine performs better for a certain IHV". Its just not that cut and dry.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1569897/...ingularity-dx12-benchmarks/1210#post_24357053

    Sorry it wasn't the first post but....lets not forgot his next post?
     
    #976 Razor1, Nov 1, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2015
    pharma likes this.
  17. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    Yeah and regarding Battlefront Nvidia 980ti does seem closer and in real world probably a little bit faster than Fury X because for some reason most of these sites still use standard reference NVIDIA cards.
    Personally this is not an apple-to-apple comparison with AMD as it is pretty clear NVIDIA provides a greater scope of performance improvement for AIBs with improved coolers-clocking-etc.
    PCGamers use AIB cards for their tests showing their clocks and this is my preference as a user will buy a good AIB from either NVIDIA or AMD when they are available.
    In their test NVIDIA is very competitive when one starts to use AIB: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...950/Specials/Beta-Technik-Benchmarks-1173656/
    The 390X seems to be the one to watch when comparing though with 980.

    Yeah funny how AoTS is now about AMD reduced driver overhead on DX12, where originally NVIDIA had massive performance gains in this area going from DX11 to DX12 with the similar engine in Star Swarm and yet went backwards with AoTS.
    Ah well different discussion though and will be interesting just what happened with the development in this area by NVIDIA and the game developers between Star Swarm and AoTS.
    Cheers
     
    Razor1 likes this.
  18. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    220
    Location:
    india
    Take your concerns to these reviewers and get their responses. It'd be quite the magic you'd see considering these benchmarks are being put out for quite some time and are affecting those who buy the cards.

    It's quite acceptable.

    And? They don't use async compute on nvidia because it didn't work.In one of his later posts he implied that Maxwell doesn't even do poor man's async compute,

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1575062/...rectx-12-tips-for-developers/40#post_24453908

    So again, what flip flopping do you think he's doing?

    The pcgh review does look better, but it seems to be not multiplayer and at 4k, the overclocked 980Ti is barely faster than a Fury which means that it'd still be slower than a Fury X.

    Barring 980Ti lightning I don't see many AIBs 980Tis jumping across a 20% gulf in performance.
     
  19. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    Yeah a person that doesn't know the merits of the scientific method and how to read those benchmarks can twist those numbers to mean just about anything, just like you are doing right now.

    By no means the benchmarks numbers are incorrect, but to use them as backing to what you have said, hell NO that is not reasonable thinking. Its inaccurate as using raw statistics to prove a point. Doesn't work.

    Oh yeah many reviewers are quite aware of my stance on their reviews, just ask Kyle at H, I blasted him here when he went on a triad of how one way of benchmarks is the best way..... that was well before you where posting here I think.....so you might not know that.

    Right the first part that wasn't the part I was talking about ;) . Pass go and collect $200 ring a bell?

    It wasn't implied, what I quoted was what he stated. Pretty stupid move, when what was stated was false. I think you really should read this entire thread to see what was really going on.


    I want you to read that document again and split it up based on what will work best on different IHV hardware and post that, and lets see where that goes, because I can tell you right now it won't go anywhere.
     
    #979 Razor1, Nov 2, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  20. madyasiwi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    32
    But how much additional input latency? Would gamers trade 10% more FPS for 30% more latency?

    Reviewers need to take note on this. Potential slight flicker/shimmer due to discrepancy in the implementation algorithm of AF, transparency AA, etc. Though AoTS does not like a good example to expose this kind of problems due to its gameplay PoV.

    Yep, as a benchmark, AoTS is basically nothing much more than glorified CPU overhead test. It is probably what happened when 3DMark API overhad test give AMD+Oxide some ideas. On their blog, Oxide even bragging about having null renderer feature built in it. 3DMark API tests show that NVidia still have some small overhead in DX12 due to the way its driver handles scheduling as opposed to AMD's hardware scheduler. AMD performs better in this pure API overhead tests even without the much hyped Async Compute involved at all. AoTS secret sauce is just to pound the CPU heavily, even on the crop of the creme CPUs, which chokes NVidia driver sheduler and in turns reduce its GPU performance.

    StarSwarm on the other hands, had nothing much going on the CPU, thus it is more of a pure high drawcalls bechmarks -- in which current NVidia hardware dominates.

    The multi adapter tests further demonstrate that dual Maxwell is obviously severely CPU bottlenecked. It has tighter frame-time delta when compared to the more micro-stutter prone Fury pairs, indicating that its performance is largely governed by how much the CPU can keep up. Also when the resolution increased from 1440p to 4K, the relative FPS performance of Maxwell pair jumps from trailing to matching Furys -- not something anyone would expect in normal situation (i.e. it's usually the other way around).

    Which might also explain why mixed Fury X + 980 Ti is faster than 980 Ti + TX, AoTS left the CPU with only enough grunts to somewhat properly feed one NVidia GPU.

    This should left a question whether AoTS is a true representation of future DX 12 games, as it totally runs counter to all the DX 12 premises about giving more power to lesser CPUs. Though of course, Intel wouldn't mind.
     
    Razor1 likes this.
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...