G8x vs R6xx in Rightmark3D 2.0

http://www.ixbt.com/video3/rightmark2.shtml
I guess it will be translated and published in emglish soon on digit-life.
So far everyone can see the numbers... I guess "good scheduling of driver development for Vista" really is very important :???:

English

AMD DX10 driver status very bad, overhyped GS performance now is "just in paper" thing.

Slowly r600 start "shine" as the nv30 :devilish:

Not the whole page translated here is the conclusion:
Conclusion on synthetic tests So debut of RightMark3D 2.0 for research on the site was held. Tests in a touch almost all aspects of innovation in Direct3D 10, they flexibly configured, allowing us to assess the relative performance of all the lines of Direct3D 10 chips from AMD and NVIDIA. Both unified architecture of these companies have shown in our new Direct3D 10 tests is good, big failures were not found, except for a couple of cases with obvious errors in the drivers AMD. Both family : R6xx G8x and high performance computing and texture, they are good at the complex components of all types. Taking the results in general, the decisions NVIDIA have certain advantages over the competition from AMD, for the moment, are ahead of their video, in most cases. But in some AMD chips tests showed better results, such as complex geometry tests and pixel shaders. The advantage of AMD chips in such tests with increasing load even growing. So the outcome of the battle of DirectX 10 games has not been determined, it is rather difficult to say which of his rivals to win. It can only be assumed that there will be similar to our results in the majority of applications R6xx and G8x be close to each other would lead to some solutions on the basis of the company NVIDIA, AMD others. And this will depend largely on developers and their methods and algorithms. Tests pixel shaders 4.0 showed that multiple texture with a relatively small sample loading ALU better job video NVIDIA. Solutions AMD, in turn, ahead of competitors in the computer tests pixel shaders. In one video card based on chip architecture R6xx showed very good results and ahead of competitors from NVIDIA operation and the situation in the second test is not yet clear because of errors in the drivers. As we have noted, tests geometry and vertex shaders give different results, some leading solutions NVIDIA, AMD others. Because of the growing complexity of the work to go forward geometric Shader video AMD, it can be assumed that the applications with the extensive use of geometric shaders, if any in the near future, will lead the company's chips. The last couple of tests RightMark3D 2.0-speed tests on the sample texture of vertex shaders. The figures shown in the results clearly indicate that the video card based on NVIDIA chips G8x perform our tests texture samples from vertex shaders faster than solutions based on the AMD architecture R6xx. This is different from the traditional balance between texture and computing chips from two competing companies. "whittle down" the number sheydernyh blocks and blocks TMU ROP quite hitting decisions middle and lower levels, greatly reducing their productivity. Low card behind the masthead of times, the best of mid-end 2-3 times (on HD 2900 XT and GeForce 8800 GTS), and low-end further to 4-8 times. As evidenced by the results of game tests, has only Direct3D 9. Judging from the reactions we have results, the drivers for Vista AMD clearly worse refined than the drivers NVIDIA. If the second company's products in our tests, no errors have been found, the decisions of AMD were two distinct issues : the rest of the line chips in the second "test" computer pixel shaders ( "Fire") and the head of the 2900 XT HD solutions in the most difficult test mode, the speed of the sample texture vertex shaders "Earth". It would like to believe that these shortcomings will be addressed in the next version of CATALYST drivers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just tried few tests at 1280x1024, they using older catalysts, compared to latest ones there is difference btw 5-40 percent increase for 2900XT. Also my CPU is not overclocked (E6400), but if it changes something in these tests i dont know ;)
 
just tested it in crossfire, 100-120 percent increase in nearly all tests, but in geometry shader tests there is zero increase, same fps like with one card.
 
Are you running CF setup in Scissor or AFR mode?

BTW, the noise filter shader performance on R600, for the Fire bunny test, is a kind of very suspicious. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you running CF setup in Scissor or AFR mode?

BTW, the noise filter shader performance on R600, for the Fire bunny test, is a kind of very suspicious. :rolleyes:

What is so suspicious?It's probably a driver bug, the ixbt guys seemed to think the same thing. And yes, my experience with CF mimics the above poster's-100% improvement. Scissor is OGL specific and thus is not applicable here. SuperTiling would've been the alternative under D3D, but I think they've banned this to hell, and they have AFR all the way now(a more compatible less performing one as standard, and the more aggressive better performing one for profiled games/the high setting for CAT AI).
 
What is so suspicious?It's probably a driver bug, the ixbt guys seemed to think the same thing. And yes, my experience with CF mimics the above poster's-100% improvement. Scissor is OGL specific and thus is not applicable here. SuperTiling would've been the alternative under D3D, but I think they've banned this to hell, and they have AFR all the way now(a more compatible less performing one as standard, and the more aggressive better performing one for profiled games/the high setting for CAT AI).

Scissor is SFR, isn't it?

There is a bug with catalyst drivers: It seems, the Rightmark3D 2.0 runs with 2D-clocks on HD 2900XT (500/500 vs 745/825).
http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lollt7.jpg
 
Scissor is SFR, isn't it?

There is a bug with catalyst drivers: It seems, the Rightmark3D 2.0 runs with 2D-clocks on HD 2900XT (500/500 vs 745/825).
http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lollt7.jpg

It's kindof SFR...I seem to recall SFR being dynamic(adjusting in-game depending on load...never worked out that great IRL, sounded good on paper), whils Scissor the load-split is fixed per-game(if it's profiled).

Hmm, theoretically that shouldn't happen...the drivers should sniff-out 3D rendering and bump the clocks. Odd.
 
They must've done these tests awhile ago, since drivers for both companies are from May (if I'm reading the revision for the Catalyst correctly).

Updates with newer drivers would be nice ;)
 
Hmm, theoretically that shouldn't happen...the drivers should sniff-out 3D rendering and bump the clocks. Odd.

I remember when R600 was first released reading in a thread here that if an application was run in a window and not fullscreen, the card would only use the 2D clocks regardless of whether the application called for 3D processing or not. I don't know if Rightmark runs in a window or not, but perhaps we are seeing the same issue here?
 
Scissor is SFR, isn't it?

There is a bug with catalyst drivers: It seems, the Rightmark3D 2.0 runs with 2D-clocks on HD 2900XT (500/500 vs 745/825).
http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lollt7.jpg

Why is it so hard for ATI to run their cards at the correct clockspeeds? Is it really that difficult to have the driver determine when a 3d application is being executed and apply the appropriate clocks? I understand Vista complicates matters but surely they can do some sort of resource utilization analysis to differentiate between aero resource usage and that of a "real" 3d app...
 
Activation for 3D clocks is simply if it is a fullscreen app that it asking for D3D or OGL. If you run the test in Windowed mode then it will use 2D clocks, if you explictly ask to run the test in fullscreen mode then it should activate 3D clocks.

Thats the case for R600 and earlier ASICs.
 
Activation for 3D clocks is simply if it is a fullscreen app that it asking for D3D or OGL. If you run the test in Windowed mode then it will use 2D clocks, if you explictly ask to run the test in fullscreen mode then it should activate 3D clocks.

Thats the case for R600 and earlier ASICs.

Is there any technical advantage to this method, or is it simply a limitation that has yet to be addressed?
 
So, I poked around at the source to see what the GS numbers were doing.

The first test (Galaxy) has basically no amplification--it takes a point and splits it into two triangles. I'm not even convinced that the bottleneck is the GS.

The second test (Hyperlight) has much, much more amplification. However, it also has a ton of texturing. When the GS load is "balanced," I think you're seeing texturing bottlenecks. When the GS load is "heavy," I think you're seeing GS bottlenecks on the G80 and texturing bottlenecks on the R600.

So, I'm not convinced these are truly accurate assessments of relative GS-specific performance.
 
optimize

It is necessary to optimize it to R600.
For instance,
Unoptimization
float x = a + b + c + d
Execution is three steps.
1.float t = a + b
2.float u = t + c
3.float x = u + d

Optimization
float x = (a + b) + (c + d)
Execution is two steps.
1.Float t=a+b and float u=c+d (parallel processing possible)
2.float x = t + u
 
It is necessary to optimize it to R600.
For instance,
Unoptimization
float x = a + b + c + d
Execution is three steps.
1.float t = a + b
2.float u = t + c
3.float x = u + d

Optimization
float x = (a + b) + (c + d)
Execution is two steps.
1.Float t=a+b and float u=c+d (parallel processing possible)
2.float x = t + u
There should be no need to guide execution with parenthesis in this case. Compilers writers are smart, I'm sure they'll figure it out.

So, I poked around at the source to see what the GS numbers were doing.
Thanks for the analysis.
 
Back
Top