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.
You mean it's favouring AMD by not utilising FL12_1 (and making GCN run them in software... hmmm). Welp, I'm glad we have got that all sorted, might as well close this thread up now.
If you're not implementing the latest and supported DX12 feature set, how can you claim it's a DX12 benchmark? It's simple as that.
Average consumers take it REALLY badly if a new benchmark says "you can't run it on your brand new (well, 3 year old) system because of X". This also directed to supporting FL11. On CPU test we took a "bold step" of requiring SSSE3 and.. uuh.. I've apologized today already to four customers that no, their Phenom II or Opteron can't run the test.
So I'd say Time Spy is a legit tool that will reflect how games could perform when a pure DX12 engine targets the most widely used hardware base (ie, DX12 FL11)
It is actually somewhat similar to how 3DMark 11 vs. 3DMark Fire Strike tested DX11. You could say that Time Spy is the "3DMark 11" or "Sky Diver" for DX12. Doesn't try to use every possible feature, aims to measure the common use case. Fire Strike went way further with DX11 and is still probably more complex/advanced than just about any DX11 game out there.
So whats the double standard.
90% of time AMD PR cries, insult developers, bad coding, evil gameworks, blaming Nvidia for AMD failure when ever Nvidia is owning AMD in a benchmark or game.
I will never join a company ,which cannot find a solution to their problems and instead they cry and blame their competitor for their failure.
Yet they have found away around everyone of these problems. You better get your wallet out for an AMD card. Nvidia still haven't got around Async properly by the looks of it so you better ditch them fast as that's been a while now they have been saying it's coming.
Does it matter?
They still cannot win from a weaker hardware on DX12.
But when you skip one of the MAJOR features of the new API because it might downgrade performance or not run at all on one of the vendors, things start to look suspicious. As Ashes showed before and Doom is showing with Vulkan now, proper async compute (with true parallelism) will be part of most of the new engines and games, so it doesn't make any sense for a benchmark which is reference in this industry to just not use it.
Does it matter?
They still cannot win from a weaker hardware on DX12.
Does it matter?
They still cannot win from a weaker hardware on DX12.
Just because they have a weaker dx12 architecture does not mean to say they have weaker hardware. The 1080 is clearly the fastest Gpu on the planet atm. It's pure speed makes up for any weakness it may have on next generation api's. The Fury X is not so far behind in some games using Dx12 and Vulkan. Imagine what a Vega is going to do in these games.
Any how Nvidia clearly have the top end to themselves atm.
Just because they have a weaker dx12 architecture does not mean to say they have weaker hardware. The 1080 is clearly the fastest Gpu on the planet atm. It's pure speed makes up for any weakness it may have on next generation api's. The Fury X is not so far behind in some games using Dx12 and Vulkan. Imagine what a Vega is going to do in these games.
Any how Nvidia clearly have the top end to themselves atm.
I was just about to say, he posted a screenshot of a Fury-X killing a 980TI and 95% the performance of a 1080.
Thats what proper A-sync does.
Vega will kill the 1080 stone dead.