3D Mark Time Spy not using true A-Sync, Maxwell A-Sync switched off!

tommybhoy · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:01

Lols.

Good find Neil.

Just like the gpu vendors-fact or economical with the truth?

Dave2150 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:11

humbug said:
all we know right now is with proper DX12 AMD's old generation makes Nvidia latest and greatest tremble.

1070 and 1080 are still ahead in every DX12 game.

Jono8 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:20

humbug said:
You seem more like a walking evangelical Nvidia commercial telling us to worship the Nvidia faith. "Oh lord praise the NVIDIA, i say PRAISE THE NVIDIA"

Vega maybe crap or it may utterly kill the 1080TI, all we know right now is with proper DX12 AMD's old generation makes Nvidia latest and greatest tremble.

Ay?

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,11.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,12.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,13.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,10.html

1080 on top always (on average by 20-25%) with the 1070 at around Fury X level.

Doesn't seem to be much trembling going on.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:23

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10486/futuremark-releases-3dmark-time-spy-directx12-benchmark

Under the hood, the engine only makes use of FL 11_0 features, which means it can run on video cards as far back as GeForce GTX 680 and Radeon HD 7970. At the same time it doesn't use any of the features from the newer feature levels, so while it ensures a consistent test between all cards, it doesn't push the very newest graphics features such as conservative rasterization.

That said, Futuremark has definitely set out to make full use of FL 11_0. Futuremark has published an excellent technical guide for the benchmark, which should go live at the same time as this article, so I won't recap it verbatim. But in brief, everything from asynchronous compute to resource heaps get used. In the case of async compute, Futuremark is using it to overlap rendering passes, though they do note that "the asynchronous compute workload per frame varies between 10-20%." On the work submission front, they're making full use of multi-threaded command queue submission, noting that every logical core in a system is used to submit work.

Wait,wut??

N19h7m4r3 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:33

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10486/futuremark-releases-3dmark-time-spy-directx12-benchmark

Wait,wut??

Yup, here's the FM dev himself saying that. Also the whole point of DX12 being so low level is to allow for separate code paths which are Needed to get the best out of the hardware, but instead FutureMark opted for a "neutral" path.

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023128/Advanced-Graphics-Techniques-Tutorial-Day

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38363396&postcount=82

3DMark Time Spy engine is specifically written to be a neutral, "reference implementation" engine for DX12 FL11_0.

Also the following.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2480259&page=2

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.*

A FL12 benchmark with fallbacks to FL11 would not really be feasible - it would basically be two separate benchmarks. FL12 adds some interesting features and fully exploiting those would take a dedicated approach.
Pretty much all games target DX12 FL11 and even there most current game engines are doing DX12 in a way that is "oh we just ported our DX11 code". Time Spy is at least taking one step further with an engine developed from the ground up 'the DX12 way' (which is one of the reasons why it took a while - oh the tales our engine team could tell of DX12 features where spec says one thing and driver implementations do... other things. A phrase "What? Nobody is doing it like this" is something that was told to us by driver developers more than once...). ( Yeah probably NVIDIA as the FM devs have stated NVIDIA drivers purposely disable anything related to Preemption, or Async Compute on Maxwell; despite NVIDIA claiming several times it is supported.)

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.

hyperseven · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:47

N19h7m4r3 said:
Yup, here's the FM dev himself saying that. Also the whole point of DX12 being so low level is to allow for separate code paths which are Needed to get the best out of the hardware, but instead FutureMark opted for a "neutral" path.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38363396&postcount=82

Also the following.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2480259&page=2

All I can say is that is one of the most amateurish PowerPoint slides I have ever seen.

This thread is fanboi gold, everyone is an instant API expert

Nasher · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:49

Dave2150 said:
1070 and 1080 are still ahead in every DX12 game.

Not by a massive amount though, and they cost twice as much.

N19h7m4r3 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:53

hyperseven said:
All I can say is that is one of the most amateurish PowerPoint slides I have ever seen.

This thread is fanboi gold, everyone is an instant API expert

Nearly all the GDC presentations look like that.

That presentation is also a combined one from both NVIDIA and AMD, about the best practices for DX12.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023128/Advanced-Graphics-Techniques-Tutorial-Day

Have a gander at the rest of GDC ones, all similar presentation format.
http://www.gdcvault.com/free/gdc-16#page-2

Also you don't have to be an API expert to read what the actual developers are saying about their own product, or what the creators of the features and hardware also say.

hyperseven · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:53

Nasher said:
Not by a massive amount though, and they cost twice as much.

aaaand

, if you can afford it, so be it, it has not stopped the hundreds (just from OCUK) virtually queuing for weeks to get hold of a 1080, has it.

Dave2150 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:57

Nasher said:
Not by a massive amount though, and they cost twice as much.

Remember there aren't many dx12 games though

Sure this will change as the months/years progress, by which time the majority of enthusiasts on here will have upgraded to next gen architectures etc.

Jono8 · 18 Jul 2016 at 22:57

Nasher said:
Not by a massive amount though, and they cost twice as much.

As has always been the case in the gpu world. You want the best, you want that extra 20-25% over a Fury X? Then you pay for it.

I don't really understand the furore over this Timespy DX12 thing. It seems to give similar results to other DX12 titles in terms of where the cards sit in the pecking order.

I'm not sure what people were expecting :confused:

humbug · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:37

Jono8 said:
As has always been the case in the gpu world. You want the best, you want that extra 20-25% over a Fury X? Then you pay for it.

I don't really understand the furore over this Timespy DX12 thing. It seems to give similar results to other DX12 titles in terms of where the cards sit in the pecking order.

I'm not sure what people were expecting

Your own Guru3D slides back there contradict this statement, lol...

Jono8 · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:37

humbug said:
Your own Guru3D slides back there contradict this statement, lol...

How?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18740536

1080's at the top. overclocked 1070's and 980Tis next, then Fury X's (as they don't overclock for a toffee), then 290p,390p and 290x's rivaling, or for the most part beating overclocked 970's and 980's.

I literally don't know what people were expecting? :confused:

humbug · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:40

Jono8 said:
How?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18740536

1080's at the top. overclocked 1070's and 980Tis next, then Fury X's (as they don't overclock for a toffee), then 290p,390p and 290x's beating 970's and 980's.

Look at the 390X score in the Guru3D slide, in it its beating the 980TI while in Time Spy its way behind.

Jono8 · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:46

humbug said:
Look at the 390X score in the Guru3D slide, in it its beating the 980TI while in Time Spy its way behind.

What in Hitman?

You can't just judge it one game. Better to look at the bigger picture.

Also, our own thread here has loads of very heavily overclocked 980Ti's which skew things somewhat

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/futuremark-3dmark-timespy-benchmark-review,1.html

^ Those are stock scores and the 390x is pretty close to the 980Ti - in fact getting pretty much the same score ( or at least very close) as the Fury's so very much like Hitman in that regard...http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,11.html - just like in Timespy, not much between the 390x and the Fury's/nano's

humbug · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:55

Jono8 said:
What in Hitman?

You can't just judge it one game. Better to look at the bigger picture.

Also, our own thread here has loads of very heavily overclocked 980Ti's which skew things somewhat

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/futuremark-3dmark-timespy-benchmark-review,1.html

^ Those are stock scores and the 390x is pretty close to the 980Ti - in fact getting pretty much the same score ( or at least very close) as the Fury's so very much like Hitman in that regard...http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,11.html - just like in Timespy, not much between the 390x and the Fury's/nano's

That is a point, why are the 390X, Fury-Nano and Fury-X all within 5% of each other, what is going on there?
Its like A-Sync isn't working at all.

Jono8 · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:57

humbug said:
That is a point, why are the 390X, Fury-Nano and Fury-X all within 5% of each other, what is going on there?

I don't know but it seems to be a slight trend in DX12 games/benches so far.

humbug · 18 Jul 2016 at 23:59

Jono8 said:
I don't know but it seems to be a slight trend in DX12 games/benches so far.

Its absolutely a trend with DX11, the Fury-X tops out with DX11 overheads before it can pull out a lead over the 390X.

Its like DX12 in Time Spy isn't doing anything at all for AMD.

tommybhoy · 19 Jul 2016 at 00:08

humbug said:
That is a point, why are the 390X, Fury-Nano and Fury-X all within 5% of each other, what is going on there?
Its like A-Sync isn't working at all.

The driver team is still holding hands writing Fiji drivers while they know just about every inch of Hawaii.

Everyone talks about AMD longevity with driver support that they just keep giving, when in reality they just got to grips with it 3 years later.

::::::::Nv fanboi mode activated:::::::

Jono8 · 19 Jul 2016 at 00:42

humbug said:
Its absolutely a trend with DX11, the Fury-X tops out with DX11 overheads before it can pull out a lead over the 390X.

Its like DX12 in Time Spy isn't doing anything at all for AMD.

So neither is Hitman or AOTS then as the 390x is very close/if not matching the Fury Pro and Nano in those as well ? :confused:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,11.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,13.html

if you read this

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/futuremark-3dmark-timespy-benchmark-review,1.html

You will see it is doing a lot for AMD as well as Pascal. You have 10-15% gains on the AMD cards. For Maxwell.. not so much.