No DX12 Software is Suitable for Benchmarking *spawn*

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by trinibwoy, Jun 3, 2016.

  1. Ryan Smith

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1,052
    Location:
    PCIe x16_1
    You are correct sir!

    I did quickly test GTX 970 and there are no gains. Not that you'd expect to see any given that NVIDIA has yet to enable concurrency on Maxwell 2, and likely never will. (It's too dang hard to get any perf benefits out of it with static scheduling)
     
  2. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    844
    I know, but that does not help explain then why the 480 has the same overall performance on all 3 sites :)
    So it cannot be said "kinda worthless", furthermore both Guru3d and pcworld use the 5960x.
    For the 480:
    Guru3D, 4,286
    Anandtech, 4,218
    PCWorld, 4,299.

    So while not ideal, the fact the 1070FE is actually at least 5% faster on Guru3d is still a valid question and point.
    Knowing drivers used by all sites (at least we have this info from Guru3d) is probably as useful as knowing the GPU score on Guru3d.
    If it is drivers, then this means when both AMD and Nvidia release a driver it may improve the benchmark, a consideration if using these scores as an absolute this early.
    Cheers
     
    #222 CSI PC, Jul 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
  3. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,997
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Possibly because Guru3D used the latest Nvidia drivers released today (WHQL Geforce 368.81). ComputerBase used the previous Geforce 368.69.
     
    lanek and CSI PC like this.
  4. SimBy

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    135
    Expect a driver frenzy in coming days :)
     
    Razor1, egoless and BRiT like this.
  5. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,326
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    Yup time to optimize drivers for 3Dmark. :D

    Regards,
    SB
     
    Lightman, pharma, Razor1 and 2 others like this.
  6. pharma

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,997
    Likes Received:
    1,679
  7. Ike Turner

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    pharma likes this.
  8. monstercameron

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    101
    Scored around 500 on an intel 580.

    Aside Im curious to see doom benches for apus a la 6770hq vs 7850k.

    Another aside, wow is intel's driver situation not good. Only the latest beta driver supports doom and a previous beta driver to support doom vulkan...just not the latest.
     
    SimBy likes this.
  9. CarstenS

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,803
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Location:
    Germany
    Must be lacking DX12 and low-level API support in general on the RX 480 then. *SCNR* Or maybe RX 480 is able to better utilize it's ressources in the first place. [Removed unnecessary sarcastic remark]

    If I had to place a bet, I'd say if anything, 3DMark is a valid target from a corporate perspective for such an endeavor. Except of course when you want to highlight your own new products' superiority. :D
     
    #229 CarstenS, Jul 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2016
  10. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    GUru3D have use the graphic score only on the comparaison with async off on.. Dont worry its the holliday, the article will be updated continousl. ( theres even some error in his chart that need to be corrected. ) ( Fury X was missing etc )

    FuryX on guru3D.. 5460 points ( a bit faster than your )..
     
    #230 lanek, Jul 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2016
  11. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,435
    Likes Received:
    440
    Location:
    New York
    From the (surprisingly detailed) 3dmark technical guide.

     
    Kej, Jawed, Lightman and 3 others like this.
  12. Ike Turner

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    1,759
    Oddly enough Time Spy uses DirectX 12 feature level 11_0. (shouldn't make any big difference in the longer run..but surprising)
     
  13. renderstate

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2016
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    51
    IIRC It's the lowest common denominator that includes GCN, that still doesn't support conservative raster and raster order views.

    It would have been nice to see those new two features being used in this benchmark :(
     
    Razor1 likes this.
  14. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY

    Well kinda invalidates a DX12 benchmark if some cards can do something an others can't so probably why it was left out.
     
  15. SimBy

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    135
    It would be nice though. API overhead test includes Mantle which is obviously AMD only.

    At least it would give us insight if there is any performance benefit for Nvidia.
     
    Lightman and Razor1 like this.
  16. Razor1

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    NY, NY
    True more is always better.
     
  17. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,435
    Likes Received:
    440
    Location:
    New York
    It would be interesting to see how a ROV OIT implementation would compare to Futuremark's A-buffer approach.

    Both nVidia and AMD have been really slacking on the demo front lately. The moon landing VXGI demo was pretty lame.
     
    Lightman likes this.
  18. Ryan Smith

    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    1,052
    Location:
    PCIe x16_1
    Futuremark's technical guides have consistently been good, but personally I think they really hit it out of the park with Time Spy. Virtually everything I wanted to know was in the guide, and a lot more stuff I wouldn't have thought to ask about or wouldn't have expected is in there as well. I wish we could get this much detailed information out of other benchmarks and games as well.
     
    #238 Ryan Smith, Jul 15, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2016
    Kej, Malo, Razor1 and 2 others like this.
  19. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    475
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    That's the reason I paid for my 3D Mark yesterday. Support job well done :)
     
    Malo likes this.
  20. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,326
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    I imagine that's there to support anything older than Maxwell (or was it Keplar) for Nvidia, and anything older than GCN based cards (I believe) for AMD.
    Interesting that you left out Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell 1 which also don't support conservative rasterization.

    If Fermi, Kepler and Maxwell 1 are able to run this, that would likely also be part of why feature 11_0 was used.

    Regards,
    SB
     
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...