NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Kaotik, Sep 21, 2010.

Tags:
  1. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Toms and HT4U both, though HT4U was over 17 games and the Ti still couldn't win.

    I think TPU might have a couple of outliers, ie WoW is so massively better on Nvidia that it is an auto 2% swing to them in the end performance totals - even though all cards are well over 100 fps in that game so it doesn't matter.
     
  2. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    About the Showdown thingie, Damage says the following in the comments section at TechReport:
    I expect that those who agreed the most with the decision to exclude Hawx2 will also agree with this one.:wink:

    That said: good job by AMD to be able to convince a game maker to do this. It doesn't happen a lot.
     
  3. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,489
    Likes Received:
    907
    Scott probably made the right decision, but there's one small difference: Hawx 2 ran slowly on Radeons because it used silly amounts of tessellation whose purpose was apparently to improve NVIDIA's relative standing more than image quality, at the expense of some frames per second even on NVIDIA GPUs.

    I don't know what Showdown looks like and how good its quality-to-performance trade-off is, but if it's good, then it's different from Hawx.
     
  4. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly on techpowerup you have one ancient game - World of Warcraft - contributing about 2% or so in favour of Nvidia in every single card benchmark. That's over 17 games as well, and most of the cards being benchmarked are so far over 100fps it should be utterly irrelevant. Why doesn't TPU remove that from their overall totals?

    I disagree with Scott here. In BF3, the 670 AMP is 18% faster. In Dirt Showdown the MSI 7950 OC is 22% faster.

    Overall the 670 AMP is 5% faster. Without Dirt Showdown the 670 AMP is 9% faster. Without BF3 the 670 AMP is 1% faster.

    Is it really fair to single out Dirt Showdown as an outlier when BF3 is also giving so much to the 670's overall performance? Where exactly do you draw the line?
     
  5. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    I quote the AMD blog
    For screen and image quality.
    http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/07/03/dirt-showdown-amd-benchmark-guide/

    I dont know exactly the "special" method who bring the problem on Nvidia hardware, could be just they need work on it. In reality looking at the difference of fps, i have no problem with reviewers decision. Well they could simply disable one of thoses settings on Nvidia card, and just specify it.

    Anyway searching for this i was looking at the gamescon AMD session, im impressed by the list of future games who support directly in their setting the HD3D and or Eyefinity, look like AMD team have start work a bit more closer with developpers of what we was used on the past.
     
    #5325 lanek, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  6. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    Using DirectCompute for rendering is not exactly a stretch, DC has been implemented in many titles for some reason or another and Forward+ rendering mechanism hasn't been without interest from many quarters. Global Illumination is also something that has long since been looked forward to for realtime rendering, yet here's a great looking (and great fun) game that's already delivering it in a playable manner. I'm not sure that there needed to be that much convincing.

    Now, when the work started who would have known that Compute performance wasn't the top priority of Keplar?
     
  7. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Its funny when i read the nvidia plot about Samaritan, it dont look it is global illumination on showdown who should give them problem.. So stay the HDAO compute or the forward render on advanced lighting
     
  8. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hexus says the global illumination makes no difference - switch it off and both sets of cards gain equally.
     
  9. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
  10. Psycho

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    #5330 Psycho, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  11. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Its cause they dont put the setting in ultra due to low fps . so they use "high" setting. who dont enable the setting for HDAO, Hardened shadow and Global illumination, advanced lighting etc ( anyway not at their highest level ) . Basically, without thoses setting enabled you are close to Dirt3 graphism. So we are back to the start point, when thoses taxing performance are enabled, the nividia's performance drop more.
    Sadly i dont have the game so i can check memory usage etc for see if it have an impact too.
     
    #5331 lanek, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  12. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    You're right that GI has been pushed by Nvidia, so you'd think they're not totally bad at it. Is UE4 equally lacking on a Kepler GPU compared to AMD? A 40+% difference is not the kind of difference we're used to see between similar cards and you'd think that even with GI enabled there's still a lot of non-DC stuff going on.
     
  13. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's probably a combination of an architectural weakness and bad drivers.

    Obviously with card releases and other stuff to do, some things go undone. Even with superior driver team resources, they can't do it all and my guess is that fixing their Dirt Showdown woes are very far down their to-do list. If you pay enough attention, you'd probably conclude that AMD's driver team has similar choices to make and often appear to be even more stretched.

    If anyone has been following Guild Wars 2, they'd know how badly Nvidia has been screwing up the drivers for that game recently as well btw. They literally came out and admitted they had no good driver (then blamed arenanet).

    [​IMG]

    http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/48375-best-nvidia-geforce-driver-for-gw2/

    2nd post is from an Nvidia employee (game launches next Saturday).
     
  14. sonen

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    33
    You're more relying on ANET to deliver well optimized and threaded graphics engine code than you are nVidia to deliver a driver tailored for GW2.

    -----------
    My issue with my GTX280 is that even on max graphics I'm only running at 50% gpu usage with 15-25fps. Will this driver help?
    -----------

    Generally speaking, that side of the issue is more bound to ANET and not to nVidia.




    That's blaming arenanet?
     
  15. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,141
    Likes Received:
    1,830
    Location:
    Finland
    About the memory bus in 660Ti - is the interpretation I read somewhere correct, where 660Ti actually has full bandwidth only to 1.5GB of memory, but if it has to use the last 512MB too, there's only 1/3rd bandwidth available for it?
     
  16. Psycho

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    Computerbase tests "reference clocked" cards with both 2 and 3 gb (I suppose the 3 gb version will be regular 192 bits all over), without any perceived difference: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti/7/

    But of course we can't really know if the 2 cards used are boosting the same etc. And for such test we should also make sure that it's not using more than 2gb, but generally that's not the case even in 2560. (duno if we need to use more than 1.5gb to start using the last 512mb).
     
  17. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    from a review I've just read (something on HardOCP) it's 1GB + the last 1GB. they say it has 1024MB on 128bit and 1024MB on 64bit.
     
  18. Gipsel

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    That's most probably not true. It all comes down how the memory space is interleaved between the three 64 bit memory controllers. It shouldn't be a problem to set it up in a way, that the first 1.5GB are accessed in 64byte chunks (or whatever the cache line size is) interleaved between the three memory controllers (the usable bandwidth equals a 192bit connection). Only for the the last 512MB there would be no interleaving (i.e. that would equal the bandwidth of a 64bit memory controller). Alternatively, the interleaving scheme could also be set up in a way, that the usable bandwidth is constant over the full 2 GB (1,3,2,3,1,3,2,3 ...), but this would reduce the bandwidth to the equivalent of a 128bit memory controller, so I would doubt it.
    Most probably it is the first version, 1.5GB can be accessed full speed and the last 512MB are slower (but still a lot faster than PCI-Express). The driver probably tries to allocate as much as possible in the first 1.5GB and uses the last 512MB only to avoid swapping something over PCI-Express. One could check this by comparing the 2GB and the 3GB versions in some tests with a very high memory utilization (crossing the 1.5GB limit).
     
  19. kalelovil

    Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    93
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...