DX12 Performance Discussion And Analysis Thread

Hm, when I published some Time Spy numbers in our mag a couple of months ago, there was no increase with AC on a GCN 1.0 as well. And interestingly enough, neither with GCN 1.1. Both (HD7970 & R7 260X) were tested with 16.7.3 drivers. Of course neither Maxwell nor Kepler scored an increase.
 
CarstenS said:
Hm, when I published some Time Spy numbers in our mag a couple of months ago, there was no increase with AC on a GCN 1.0 as well. And interestingly enough, neither with GCN 1.1. Both (HD7970 & R7 260X) were tested with 16.7.3 drivers. Of course neither Maxwell nor Kepler scored an increase.
Click to expand...

I see somes gains on GCN 1.1(aka GCN 2) but no one test on old GCN 1.0 (aka GCN 1).
 
CarstenS said:
Hm, when I published some Time Spy numbers in our mag a couple of months ago, there was no increase with AC on a GCN 1.0 as well. And interestingly enough, neither with GCN 1.1. Both (HD7970 & R7 260X) were tested with 16.7.3 drivers. Of course neither Maxwell nor Kepler scored an increase.
Click to expand...

Have you still the R7 260X ? Can you test Async Compute with that tool ? https://mega.nz/#!IJNQ0S4a!oLn5-FzqBqZ2potDqYRtY6nahF3bcvAPZQ26PUIMFvA

If anyone can send me the results with GCN 1.1(aka GCN 2) like R9 290, R9 290X etc. I would be glad
 
We have it in the lab, sure. But pre-xmas I'm awfully busy atm. Will see what I can do.
I remember that tool from one of the threads here. Maybe I even have older results collecting dust on my hard drive. :)
 
And he saw it was very good.. and he approved it completely. :D

Edit (December 14th, 2016):
Please note that I’m not an official AMD spokesperson on this subject, and I should have made clear when posting, that this is only my personal understanding of the situation, which might be wrong or at least contain some invalid assumptions. It appears the official driver team has already issued a statement that they are aware of the issue and currently looking into it.
Click to expand...
 
MDolenc said:
GCN 1.0 = GCN gen 1, GCN 1.1 = GCN gen 2,... If we still insist on different nomenclature then AMD uses.
Click to expand...
I also find it odd that some people are still using GCN 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc unofficial names. AMD might have used GCN 1.1 unofficially at some point, but I don't remember them ever using GCN 1.2 or 1.3.

Official names are: GCN1, GCN2, GCN3 and GCN4. Vega is most likely GCN5. Please don't call Vega GCN 1.4, that would just confuse people :)

Example: https://gpuopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AMD_GCN3_Instruction_Set_Architecture_rev1.1.pdf
Short = GCN3
Long = Graphics Core Next, Generation 3
 
sebbbi said:
I also find it odd that some people are still using GCN 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc unofficial names. AMD might have used GCN 1.1 unofficially at some point, but I don't remember them ever using GCN 1.2 or 1.3.

Official names are: GCN1, GCN2, GCN3 and GCN4. Vega is most likely GCN5. Please don't call Vega GCN 1.4, that would just confuse people :)

Example: https://gpuopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AMD_GCN3_Instruction_Set_Architecture_rev1.1.pdf
Short = GCN3
Long = Graphics Core Next, Generation 3
Click to expand...
To nitpick, Vega will use what will probably be called GCN5, but it won't be GCN5, just like with Polaris where they decided they need (again) name for the whole architecture (Polaris is architecture which uses GCN4 and other elements like UVD-something and VCE-something, while before they just called the whole thing GCNx)
 
PIX for Windows (Beta) is finally out!

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pix/2017/01/17/introducing-pix-on-windows-beta/

PIX is a performance tuning and debugging tool for game developers. It has a long and storied history spanning three generations of Xbox console. Today we are pleased to announce that a beta release of PIX is now available for analyzing DirectX 12 games on Windows as well.

PIX on Windows provides five main modes of operation:

  • GPU captures for debugging and analyzing the performance of Direct3D 12 graphics rendering.
  • Timing captures for understanding the performance and threading of all CPU and GPU work carried out by your game.
  • Function Summary captures accumulate information about how long each function runs for and how often each is called.
  • Callgraph captures trace the execution of a single function.
  • Memory Allocation captures provide insight into the memory allocations made by your game.
Click to expand...
 
Wow that could really be paramount in benchmarking DX12 games. The memory allocation could be an interesting one given Raja's remarks, if it also studies actual usage.
 
Malo said:
Wow that could really be paramount in benchmarking DX12 games. The memory allocation could be an interesting one given Raja's remarks, if it also studies actual usage.
Click to expand...
What are the advantages of these versus profiling tools in licensed engines? You get memory allocation profiling tools in Unity/Unreal for example.
 
Pixel said:
What are the advantages of these versus profiling tools in licensed engines? You get memory allocation profiling tools in Unity/Unreal for example.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to benchmarking by analysts, not game developers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
R
Building a PC with XB1X specs *spawn
Replies
10
Views
3K
Blazkowicz
B
A
Forza: A Test Case for next gen hardware discussion
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
tuna
T
L
Dazed and Computed / did the GPUs took the wrong road?
2
Replies
27
Views
10K
liolio
L
Shifty Geezer
What’s the price of switching from console to PC?
8 9 10
Replies
188
Views
32K
I.S.T.
I
Back
Top