• 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 vs Open GL performance

AMDMatt said:
Is anyone still interested in seeing these benchmark videos or are we balls deep in API debate?

I could run some 1080P/1440P footage on a RX 480 for comparison purposes, if there is any interest in seeing performance under Vulkan? :)
Click to expand...

Do keep posting, please!

I'm grateful for anything that keeps me busy while I wait for my Nitro+ pre-order to ship!
 
Gregster said:
I love the constant self quoting :D
Click to expand...

:D That was the last time, but just wanted to make sure people were actually interested in the content before i make more, because it is time consuming when you're recording 30 minutes of footage, converting and then uploading.

akarypid said:
Do keep posting, please!

I'm grateful for anything that keeps me busy while I wait for my Nitro+ pre-order to ship!
Click to expand...

:)
 
AMDMatt said:
:D That was the last time, but just wanted to make sure people were actually interested in the content before i make more, because it is time consuming when you're recording 30 minutes of footage, converting and then uploading.



:)
Click to expand...


I am great-full for the effort even though i dislike AMD...come to think of it i dislike Nvidia too ...

What is a man to do

think i will go with Matrox

:p
 
AMDMatt said:
:D That was the last time, but just wanted to make sure people were actually interested in the content before i make more, because it is time consuming when you're recording 30 minutes of footage, converting and then uploading.
Click to expand...

Yer, you know it. I will give the 480 big kudos for the time it took to encode a couple of vids. Much quicker than any of my latest NVidia GPUs in Sony Vegas.
 
akarypid said:
It requires either very high bandwidth OR true parallel async compute.

I have not programmed this sort of thing yet, but from what I've read the following seems quite a reasonable explanation to me:

AMD cards use the copy queue to stream the textures while compute/3d queues are still doing actual graphics work (in parallel). NVidia cards can't copy in parallel and must do their preemption thing to implement the async behavior (i.e. pause transfer to render frames). Therefore it follows that this effect will appear when the memory bandwidth is not high enough to complete the data transfer within the time-slices NVidia allocates to copying.

In short, memory bandwidth for NVidia cards becomes more important, whereas AMD cards can get away with lower bandwidth as long as they start transferring textures in time.

I assume NVidia can fix this on 1070 by changing the driver to prioritize copying a bit (at the cost of some lower FPS during that time). Or the developers can tune this manually to get the 1070 to work perfectly. But it's just too time-consuming to do this for every single card. For example, the 1080 using the faster GDDR5X seems to be fast enough and is totally unaffected. Tuning a path for 1070 would cause the 1080 to take an FPS hit for no reason. So you need 2 different paths as a dev to get both working optimally? And what about the other models?

I don't thing people realise the importance of this. Sure 1-2 secs of worse image quality on the 1070 is not a big deal (seriously, who cares?). However, this is the kind of thing that makes tuning for AMD so much easier.

Multi-engine is hard enough already, even without having to worry about all this. In AMD cards you can just schedule whatever you need and let the ACE figure out the scheduling, not having to worry so much about every single detail. Whereas NVidia needs devs to put in time and tune these operations manually or has to do it themselves by game profiles in their drivers (not sure how well the latter will work but that's what NVidia keeps saying: we will address this stuff in software).

I find it interesting that the basic premise of devs going forward is now: 'worry about getting NVidia to work acceptably as AMD cards will sort themselves out'. For example this DX12 dev guide (yes I know Doom is Vulkan but the multi-engine paradigm is the same among the two) actually goes as far as to spell it out:

* Choose sufficiently large batches of short running shaders.

Long running shaders can complicate scheduling on Nvidias hardware. Ensure that the GPU can remain fully utilized until the end of each batch. Tune this for Nvidias hardware, AMD will adapt just fine.​

NVidia is getting into an age where they will have minor quirks like that all over the place and will rely on its mindshare for users to 'tolerate' this while they sort it out in drivers. At the same time developers will have less and less incentive to profile every single NVidia card model and to get it to work acceptably. They will choose a baseline (and I hope it's the 1060 so that things work for most users) and tune for that minimum (lower models will have degraded quality while higher models may take a bit of an FPS hit).

I really want to see how well the 1060 with its 192bit bus will cope with these scenes in Vulkan mode. It may make the problem much more visible which would confirm my suspicions (i.e. they optimised Doom for a 1080 which makes the 1070 suffer and the 1060 suffer even more).
Click to expand...

Great sensible post, we need more like you on the graphics forum
 
As an nvidia owner i will say vulkan is pointless for nvidia and great for amd and as i wont be buying a new card for a while yet give me direct x games or opengl for my card.

It may aswell be called Amd vulkan :D
 
Ian Evey said:
As an nvidia owner i will say vulkan is pointless for nvidia and great for amd and as i wont be buying a new card for a while yet give me direct x games or opengl for my card.

It may aswell be called Amd vulkan :D
Click to expand...

OpenGL is dead now, it was a pain to work with, and was horribly bloated in an attempt to keep compatibility as far back as version 2.1.

Vulkan is fresh, from the ground up, much easier to use, and far better performance wise. All it needs now is the professional market to move from their old OGL stacks and version and we'll all have a grand time.

Especially since it'll also breath some new life into old Quadro and FirePro cards for Pro work. Although I think NVIDIA might not like that, as it eats into their cash cow.

Interestingly NVIDIA that is always on ball with Day 1 game support and new drivers were late in providing a Vulkan performance driver for Doom. Despite have Vulkan support first, and using Doom on Vulkan to show off and promote Pascal at their events this year.
 
bear in mind 1080s only have about an extra 15% more ram bandwidth.

GRRD5X is double at the "same" frequencies, but the clock speed of it on 1080s is really low compared to 1070s, my overclocked vram on my 1070 is only 3% lower than 1080 spec.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom