Speculation: GPU Performance Comparisons of 2020 *Spawn*

Honestly, I hardly believe this to be the case, especially with cards like this...;

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gp...90_xtreme_gpus_appear_to_be_4-slot_monsters/1

 

That's good man.

Well like the quote from the blogpost says Doom 2016 uses 50 render targets, that means that the scene is rendered at least 50 times per frame in different ways, although not all of them are full res. But many of those are modified several times per frame so it's probably a much higher number.

That's really hard to do. in any case, I think it is more important to make it clear that it is not a bottleneck that they are talking about. Bottleneck implies that after a certain point increasing performance by increasing other units other than the bottleneck is imposible. That's not how GPUs work. Rendering a frame is divided into thousands of small semi-dependent tasks, some of which take place mostly on shaders, others mostly or exclusively on ROPs, texture units, etc. Increasing one particular type of unit will make its relevant tasks finish faster, thus reducing the frame time and increasing frame rate, although how much the fps will increase depends on how much of the frametime that particular unit has influence over.

 

I think it's pretty obvious at this point Nvidia marketing was very creative with those 1.9x perf/W improvement. If the 3080 benchmark leaks are the real deal it's only 30% faster than 2080Ti on average.

 

Other than Ashes of the Singularity, what sources show this?

 

I’d buy this argument if it weren’t for the fact that the TBP of the RTX 3000 cards are well above 300 watts.

 

Do they, though? What if those people have workloads in mind, that rely on pure TFlops throughput? People should evaluate (i.e. stare at) things, they need or want from a given piece of hardware.

And they should, if that's the case.

 

Well, the so far leaked CUDA and OpenCL-benchmarks (CompuBench) aren't showing bigger gains than games, and they're mostly FP32 loads aren't they?

 

I have no idea about the workloads from Compubench, your assumption would be as good (or better) as mine.

We have something from Nvidia directly though: Luxmark scales very well (>2x) apparently, Blender is also at or around 2x.
Of course, this has to be taken with an appropriately sized grain of salt. But I would wait until independent reviews pop up, leaks are IMO not very trustworthy, could be PR in one or the other directions, depending who got the hands on those cards.

 

Yep, g-buffer fill, shadow maps fill, alpha blending, foliage overdraw, general overdraw w/o perfect front to back sorting, small triangles, etc, etc, all adds up to the ROPS usage.

 

Not really. It has been important when the GPUs are close in performance, because then it becomes a differentiator. R290 series had a lot of power-related sins overlooked due to excellent performance, while various Fermi offshoots had it held against them even after Nvidia massacred their cost structure to make it quasi-competitive.

 

And yet Fermi still sold like crazy and the R9 290(X) didn't.

 

On average of what? Fortnite and PUBG? Current gen games won't be able to make full use of Ampere h/w.

 

Fermi was a good arch, it had immense performance, it's just that it's first iteration (GTX 400) was bad because of process problems, yet it still beat the HD 5870, NVIDIA fixed Fermi in the (GTX 500) series and still managed to beat the next AMD gen: HD 6970.

 

Mesh shaders, variable rate shading, DXR 1.1 were already available in Turing. RTX IO will be available in Turing. Not sure what software developers would really have to do to leverage Ampere that would be different than Turing.

 

There also "motion blur hardware acceleration" to accelerate BVH ray tracing in high motion scenes which is unique to Ampere. Should be interesting once this is implemented in games.

 

There's like one game which use one of these features presently. But to take advantage of Ampere games have to push shading way harder than they do now.

 

Also simultaneous use of FP32, RT and DLSS which games need to specifically support.

And of course generally higher RT loads.

 

Do they? Is simultaneous execution some extension of D3D? Extensions for Vulkan? Genuinely curious. I'd assumed this is something the driver would handle.

 

Is this similar to the 1070 situation where it had 64 ROPS, but could only use all of them in some limited situations like MSAA resolve? (and in other situations it was limited by the front end to only 48 pixels/cycle)

 

I had the GTX580 1.5gb, it was damn impressive for it's time, didn't get the 3gb since it wasn't available at the time. I had them in SLI for a while too, before going with a single GTX680.

Yes dont understand why people are concerned, these new gpus already perform like nothing else. It's the best thing that happen imo. Now AMD's turn.