GCN 1.0 (7970) doesn't have any ACE units, no A-Sync.
GCN 1.1 and 1.2 do.
Gcn 1 parts have 2 async units. Even the lowest end parts, they are what feed work to the cores.
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.
GCN 1.0 (7970) doesn't have any ACE units, no A-Sync.
GCN 1.1 and 1.2 do.
The inverse is also true of course:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10067/ashes-of-the-singularity-revisited-beta/6
The FuryX at 1080p looses performance when Async is switched on. Other resolution and setting can switch performance benefits/costs around endlessly, so it gets really hard to optimize appropriately even just on AMD. once you throw in NVidia GPUs then you need totally different optimization.
For someone calling it the poster child for async you obviously missed where their developers said it wasn't used all that extensively at all and that games in the future could use it a lot more effectively.
Again, this is their first shot at DX12, the first shot at DX11 and DX10, and DX9, etc, is always suboptimal. You take a new API, you design an engine you think will work great... low and behold you realise some mistakes are made, plenty of things can be improved and the next version of the engine on the same API is improved.
Maybe you're new, but that is actually how the world works. Make a car, make a new car and fix the things you screwed up last time. Pick up the guitar, learn a bit, practice over time and get better and play more complex pieces, bake a cake, it turns out horribly, keep doing it and get better at it.
In pretty much the first game to use async there is a very large benefit, 20% at high res with extreme settings.... and it will get better over time.
Still waiting on info for the 'Super Early Adopters Edition'![]()
There's actually several games that get little to no benefit using DX12.For someone calling it the poster child for async you obviously missed where their developers said it wasn't used all that extensively at all and that games in the future could use it a lot more effectively.
Again, this is their first shot at DX12, the first shot at DX11 and DX10, and DX9, etc, is always suboptimal. You take a new API, you design an engine you think will work great... low and behold you realise some mistakes are made, plenty of things can be improved and the next version of the engine on the same API is improved.
Maybe you're new, but that is actually how the world works. Make a car, make a new car and fix the things you screwed up last time. Pick up the guitar, learn a bit, practice over time and get better and play more complex pieces, bake a cake, it turns out horribly, keep doing it and get better at it.
In pretty much the first game to use async there is a very large benefit, 20% at high res with extreme settings.... and it will get better over time.
Most dx12 today are patch in not engines built ground up for dx12.
DX12 will however have a faster adoption due to console are the main target for game developers first.
Polaris and soon Vega will be the main GPU leading the way into the future.
I call it DX12
A star to guide us !!!
To the promised land![]()
Most dx12 today are patch in not engines built ground up for dx12.
DX12 will however have a faster adoption due to console are the main target for game developers first.
Polaris and soon Vega will be the main GPU leading the way into the future.
I call it DX12
You do forget that all AMD cards are as strong onVulcanMantle
Most dx12 today are patch in not engines built ground up for dx12.
DX12 will however have a faster adoption due to console are the main target for game developers first.
Polaris and soon Vega will be the main GPU leading the way into the future.
I call it DX12
Except Fiji based cards that are slower than Hawaii in Mantle.
GCN 1.0 has 2 ACE's.
![]()
Seems in reality 2nd gen Maxwell would be close to 1+1 than 1+31 when compared to AMD's architecture.
Pascal v Polaris is interesting as it looks like Polaris is 1+4? while the way they've done Pascal looks like more the equivalent of 1+1 in terms of a GCN architecture on paper but with the prioritisation, etc. functionally is like having 1+2 but between the likely clock speed advantage of Pascal and nature of real world data means the optimal point is likely to fall between the 2 architectures giving a broadly closer to equal result unless you synthetically load up either architecture.