No DX12 Software is Suitable for Benchmarking *spawn*

[renderstate]

It invalidates it because you are possibly slowing down some HW making official scores comparison unreliable. On the other hand if an IHV disables concurrent execution (or the HW doesn't support it in the first place) the score is still valid, of course.

 

[trinibwoy]

So a simple question. Why is it that when Nvidia disables 'async compute' on a driver level on anything older than Pascal (to prevent performance tanking obviously), TimeSpy score is valid. But when you do the same and disable 'async compute' in TimeSpy benchmark itself, it invalidates your score.

Futuremark isn't making any claims about what the hardware actually does. Async queues are an API construct. If nVidia decides to do everything serially that's their business.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

"FM_Jarnis [developer] 2 hours ago
..and just FYI so you don't think I'm just ignoring this thread:

Whole thread (and the Reddit threads - all six or seven of them - and a couple of other threads in other places - you guys have been posting this everywhere...) have been fowarded to the 3DMark dev team and our director of engineering and I have recommended that they should probably say something.

It is a weekend and they do not normaly work on weekends, so this may take a couple of days, but my guess is that they would further clarify this issue by expanding on the Technical Guide to be more detailed as to what 3DMark Time Spy does exactly.

Those yelling about refunds or throwing wild accusations of bias are recommended to calm down ever so slightly. I'm sure a lot more will be written on the oh-so-interesting subject of DX12 async compute over the coming days."

http://steamcommunity.com/app/223850/discussions/0/366298942110944664/?ctp=6#c366298942113378129

 

[Alessio1989]

Futuremark isn't making any claims about what the hardware actually does. Async queues are an API construct. If nVidia decides to do everything serially that's their business.

Why do you think people still do not understand this?

 

[OlegSH]

Why is it that when Nvidia disables 'async compute' on a driver level on anything older than Pascal (to prevent performance tanking obviously)

Because nvidia cannot disable it on driver level, all nvidia can do is simply merge async streams into common graphics stream, it's not equall to disabled async because additional overhead due to a larger number of executecommandlist calls for a larger number of command lists with Async is still here and it could cause perf drops in many cases with unoptimized code

 

[troyan]

Because nvidia cannot disable it on driver level, all nvidia can do is simply merge async streams into common graphics stream[...]

And nVidia is doing exactly that on Kepler and Maxwell: https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1871143/

The driver preempts the dedicated compute workload into the graphics queue.

 

[troyan]

I'm not able to edit my posting.
Here is an example from Hitman with my GTX980T
I

"Light green" is the compute workload from the compute queue. "Dark green" is the graphics workload.

 

[BRiT]

Why do you think people still do not understand this?

Because people are idiots. Have you not had to deal with other people?

 

[Alessio1989]

Because people are idiots. Have you not had to deal with other people?

Or just some people that should "inform" the mass still do not understand what they are talking about..

 

[lanek]

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.

Just for a little precision the API overhead with Mantle test have been made at a time where only Mantle was available. ( no DX12, nor vullkan ).

 

[CSI PC]

Why do you think people still do not understand this?

Same reason they think Async Compute is giving all the 25% to 50% boosts seen in games/benchmarks for AMD GPUs *shrug*.
Cheers

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And the same reason people think their computers come with 2 TB of memory.

Regards,
SB

 

[Alessio1989]

And the same reason people think their computers come with 2 TB of memory.

Regards,
SB

Well, mass storage is still a kind of memory : D

 

[Entropy]

Some people seem to want to be upset. Of course a subset of those are likely to receive compensation for that..,

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Possible GTX 1060 Time Spy scores.
http://www.3dcenter.org/news/erste-3dmark13-timespy-benchmarks-der-geforce-gtx-1060-6gb

 

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Why do you think people still do not understand this?

Possibly because the press and consumers keep freaking out about everything related to it? If it's really just an API concept that people are free to implement however they want, all that should matter is the total delivered performance of a game or benchmark, which is almost getting lost in the noise at this point to be honest :S

 

[CarstenS]

Seems like some Steam users have been led to believe, Time Spy is no valid DX12 test and does not use „proper“ DX12 multi engine dispatch with enough parallelism:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/223850/discussions/0/366298942110944664/?ctp=1

 

[MDolenc]

Seems like some Steam users have been led to believe, Time Spy is no valid DX12 test and does not use „proper“ DX12 multi engine dispatch with enough parallelism:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/223850/discussions/0/366298942110944664/?ctp=1

So when are they producing a benchmark that will show Maxwell crap it's pants when shown async compute (and if it does I'll be very interested in scenario how to achieve that)?

 

[Razor1]

Seems like some Steam users have been led to believe, Time Spy is no valid DX12 test and does not use „proper“ DX12 multi engine dispatch with enough parallelism:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/223850/discussions/0/366298942110944664/?ctp=1

Ah it points to OC.net the same guy that started up with async compute to begin with lol.

 

[Alessio1989]

Again, Futuremark guys are too much fair. I pretty like what they were able to product using only FL 11_0 hardware capabilities.