• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Doom Vulkan with different CPUs

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,248
Whole CPU thing is invalid until they sort the V-Sync thing - if you sit a 480 and 1060 down side by side at 1080p ultra and look at the CPU times in Vulkan on the overlay you'll notice that the 480 sits around 17ms with spikes to about 24ms while the 1060 is constantly bouncing off 60+ms CPU times - despite its average framerate being fairly good.


**bangs head against wall**
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
The interesting thing here, is that graph taken in isolation makes the RX 480 look total trash for those on older hardware. But then if you goto the link, and look at the other graphs it is NOTHING like the graph shown for doom. The 480 is mostly behind the 1060 for sure, but certainly nothing like the graph posted at the top.

Whilst the gap is minimal, it does make for a good choice for the consumer. Both pretty much pound for pound (unless people want the 4GB 480 of course) and the 1060 has the edge as we sit here today. A hard choice for those considering either GPU.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Posts
20,639
Location
The KOP
Whole CPU thing is invalid until they sort the V-Sync thing - if you sit a 480 and 1060 down side by side at 1080p ultra and look at the CPU times in Vulkan on the overlay you'll notice that the 480 sits around 17ms with spikes to about 24ms while the 1060 is constantly bouncing off 60+ms CPU times - despite its average framerate being fairly good.


**bangs head against wall**

Very strange, will watch the video you posted when home from work.

@Greg do you enable Vsync in game on your runs?
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
Whole CPU thing is invalid until they sort the V-Sync thing - if you sit a 480 and 1060 down side by side at 1080p ultra and look at the CPU times in Vulkan on the overlay you'll notice that the 480 sits around 17ms with spikes to about 24ms while the 1060 is constantly bouncing off 60+ms CPU times - despite its average framerate being fairly good.


**bangs head against wall**

It wasn't something I had in fairness and both were super smooth with good frame times.

 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,248
Very strange, will watch the video you posted when home from work.

@Greg do you enable Vsync in game on your runs?

Its the DF video you posted recently - they touch on what I mention and you can see what is going on in the frametime graphs but for some reason they don't seem to have realised the significance of what they've found.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Posts
150
Location
Here
So either the cpu's are bottlenecking the 480...
All CPUs bottleneck any mid- to high-end graphics card made in the past 5 years in most recent games. I saw a doubling in minimum framerates with an HD7950 pretty much across the board going from a Q9550 at 3.6GHz to an i5 6600K at 4.5GHz. The scaling carries on beyond 4.7GHz in my case, but I'm happy to stick at 4.5.

The results at the link below using a GTX980 Ti Strix show the same effect proving that it's not an AMD specific issue and make interesting reading...

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art66945.html

(See pages 15 to 19 in particular)

Vulkan or not, it's all about the IOPS.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
Weird you don't seem to be getting it - all the setups I've seen so far are exhibiting it though they aren't seeing any gains in Vulkan.

I have FastSync set in my NCP. No idea if that makes a difference but that switches itself back to G-Sync capped every time I restart the computer and I often forget to put it back to Fast and I would have noticed a difference.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,940
Location
Dalek flagship
There have been a lot of posts recently showing confusion over what the new Vulkan and DX12 APis bring to the table. Some people mistakenly seem to think there is some kind of magical instantaneous performance boost and any card that doesn't get faster is somehow not supporting the API. this is somewhat flawed logic, the primary advantages, at least in the near term, is reduced CPU overhead. The multi-threading and reduced draw call overheads reduce any CPU bottlenecks.

if performance doesn't increase, that merely means there isn't a CPU bottle-neck with the specific GPU and CPU combo. This is very apparent when looking at a low-end GPU combined with a high end CPU which sadly is frequently the case in reviews. Things get very interesting when the CPU power is reduced

doom.png


here we can see with a last CPU the 1060 doesn't see a big gain in performance, which indicates there is no CPU bottleneck and the OpenGL have a low overhead and well optimized. In contrast, the 480 sees a very healthy gain in performance which means the card is suffering some kind of bottle neck in OpenGL. A combination of high driver overhead and limitations of the GPU front-end coming to play.

However, with older slower CPU's even the 1060 starts to see very healthy gains in performance using Vulkan, in fact performance keeps very close to the experience with the fast CPU. The 1060, Vulkan API and the NVidia Vulkan drivers are doing exactly what is expected - reducing the bottleneck of the CPU.

The 480 still see a good benefit form using Vulkan but even there the performance is degraded significantly with slower CPUs. The effect is so big that the 1060 commands a significant performance lead, be it in openGL or Vulkan over the 480.



This is soemthign to keep in ind if you have an older computer and are looking to buy one of the new mainstream GPUs . Performance with a very high end CPU may not be painting the true performance picture.

No CPU bottleneck happening with any of the combos.

The GTX 1060 is the faster card (Just) and that is not bottlenecking so this means the RX480 should not either.

All the graph is showing is differences in software, not hardware.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Posts
22,383
Location
Purley - Croydon
That depends on the quality of AMD's OpenGL drivers which are notoriously bad.

Is Vulkan replacing OpenGL. or will new titles continue to be developed on both?

Actually I think it shows somewhat the opposite. AMD can still do a lot with OpenGL and Dx11 drivers to close the performance gap.


The other thing is in the future there may be games where the number of draw call increases substantially. Under those scenarios even Nvidia's DX11 and OpenGL might start becoming bottlenecked by the CPU and thus the DX12/Vulkan APIs will facilitate much better performance improvements. As the moment, Nvidia's driver stack simply means that DX12/Vulkan don't always lead to such gains.

One of the exceptions to this is the DX12 Timespy benchmark that has massively increased draw-calls. PascalGPUs do really well at leveraging the API


If I understand correctly, you're saying that NV's currently optimising a lot better than AMD is, but AMD is equalling that optimisation in DX12 only, and this is why the 480 beats the 1060 in Vulkan/DX12 applications?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
15,440
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
Whilst the gap is minimal, it does make for a good choice for the consumer. Both pretty much pound for pound (unless people want the 4GB 480 of course) and the 1060 has the edge as we sit here today. A hard choice for those considering either GPU.

I am seriously being swayed toward the 1060, especially given that performance of current games is 90% in the 1060's favour, and the price appears to be roughly the same for AIB cards of 1060 or 480. The 480 would have to be at least 30 cheaper on average to warrant it. And I completely agree, the 4GB seems like the only real option for a budget gamer right now, with the problem that some companies are putting on slower memory which is just sodding lame.

I am trying to not get too caught up in the DX11 results though with the benchmarks, because we all know that AMD suffers there... but the anno result is just really really bizarre on the 6700k.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Oct 2010
Posts
22,383
Location
Purley - Croydon
I am seriously being swayed toward the 1060, especially given that performance of current games is 90% in the 1060's favour, and the price appears to be roughly the same for AIB cards of 1060 or 480. The 480 would have to be at least 30 cheaper on average to warrant it. And I completely agree, the 4GB seems like the only real option for a budget gamer right now, with the problem that some companies are putting on slower memory which is just sodding lame.

I think the telling thing will be BF1 performance. That's the main reason I'm upgrading anyway :D
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Jan 2009
Posts
2,682
Location
Derby
I honestly thought Amd would clean up with all cpu's on vulkan, So Amd on vulkan with a new cpu is better and nvidia on vulkan with older cpu's is better. Hmmmm not what I thought this cpu overhead talk was all about.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
So either the cpu's are bottlenecking the 480

OR

The 480 is attempting to offloading some work to the CPU that the 1060 does not and it can't keep up with demand.


I have to say ... that is quite a nasty looking graph.

Is there anything else to this, like stupid levels of tessellation going on or something, that isn't immediately obvious here.


No, itis the PAI behavign exactly as expected.

Vulkan and Dx12 reduced CPU overheads. No CPU, bottleneck then no performance gain.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
The rest of the results show very little in it between dx11 for nvidia and AMD quite surprised tbh maybe the extra driver work that went into the new GPU.

Conclusion
Well I didn’t manage to run into any compatibility issues with my Radeon RX 480 on these old systems but I did end up finding some interesting results. For the most part the 480 didn’t fare nearly as poorly against the GTX 1060 as I thought it might. There were of course exceptions though such as Doom and Ashes of the Singularity using DX11.
It was interesting, although admittedly not all that surprising, to see just how much slower these new mid-range graphics cards were on these old quad-core systems. It’s also been a long time since I’ve seen the Core i5-750 face the Phenom II X4 955 and honestly I had forgotten how much better the Intel processor was for gaming. The performance difference is likely being amplified by the use of modern games that take full advantage of quad-core processors, with the exception of ARMA 3.
In short it appears you’re going to see similar performance margins between the RX 480 and GTX 1060 on older hardware. On that note you’re also going to see considerably greater performance when using a modern processor or at least a relatively modern processor overclocked. I didn’t have time to overclock the Core i5 and Phenom II X4 processors for this video but perhaps I can do a more indepth video in the near future featuring more GPU and GPU configurations if you guys are keen to see it.

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/



yeah, in general when you run a modern GPU on old PCUs then the PCu becomes the performance bottle neck. that is particularly exciting but explains why reviewers will sue a fats PCU to highlight differences between raw GPU performance.


What I found interesting was the strong evidence that Pascal GPUs do indeed see a good benefit form running Vulkan in scenarios where you expect Vulkan to help over OpenGl.

The other common scenario is very fast GPUs, and again we see the 1080 see a healthy performance boost form using vulkan when the slower 1060 doesn't on a fast CPU.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
15,440
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
No, itis the PAI behavign exactly as expected.

Vulkan and Dx12 reduced CPU overheads. No CPU, bottleneck then no performance gain.

So please explain to me why the 6700k would be the most CPU limited in that original chart? Surely the 480 would be LEAST limited by that CPU compared to the others? But then it makes a massive jump in performance. Your explanation is the exact opposite of what we are seeing in that chart.
 
Back
Top Bottom