Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Various] Ashes of the Singularity DX12 Benchmarks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] Ashes of the Singularity DX12 Benchmarks - Page 121  

post #1201 of 2682
AMD does not have the track record of nVidia on making their tech inaccessible or inefficient to their competitors in a premeditated fashion. When TressFX came out and nVidia had trouble they released the code to let nVidia optimize for it. Most AMD tech is made available for the industry as a whole to make use of and optimize, TressFX, FreeSync, Mantle, etc. nVidia could have made use of Mantle if they wished.
Lime
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-7870K ASUS A88X-Pro Radeon HD7950 32GB Patriot Viper DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2TB Seagate HDD 128GB Kingston SSD 1TB Samsung HDD 1TB Seagate 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Toshiba Samsung DVD-RW Zalman 9500 Series Copper Fin Cooler Windows 7 Pro 64-bit Acer 23" 1080p LCD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32" 1080p LCD-TV Dell OEM Corsair HX 620 CoolerMAster Elite 
MouseAudio
Gigabyte Force M7 Thor Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi 
  hide details  
Lime
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10-7870K ASUS A88X-Pro Radeon HD7950 32GB Patriot Viper DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2TB Seagate HDD 128GB Kingston SSD 1TB Samsung HDD 1TB Seagate 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Toshiba Samsung DVD-RW Zalman 9500 Series Copper Fin Cooler Windows 7 Pro 64-bit Acer 23" 1080p LCD 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 32" 1080p LCD-TV Dell OEM Corsair HX 620 CoolerMAster Elite 
MouseAudio
Gigabyte Force M7 Thor Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi 
  hide details  
post #1202 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomTaco View Post

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but there's a few things I don't understand. For starters are these theories based on the single Ashes of the Singularity benchmark? IIRC the game was developed with AMD helping the dev out. Would it be crazy to assume there were choices made that specifically improved performance for AMD? I'm not saying they necessarily actively made choices that hampered NVIDIA intentionally or even directly, but if true I'd assume some choices made would specifically benefit AMD while not helping, or potentially hurting NVIDIA hardware. Assuming this is all still based on Ashes alone, that's a single engine. There's at least half a dozen other engines out there that either have dx12 support or have it coming that are not necessarily going to behave the same way, so doesn't it seem a bit too early to draw any conclusions based on a sample size of 1?
The game uses DirectX12 and makes fine use of the Asynchronous computing. This are the benefits for AMD. For nVidia , the only benefit is the DirectX12 more or less. They have not done anything to hinder both AMD and nVidia.
Desktop PC
(15 items)
 
ASUS ROG G72GX
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x4 960T BE ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 4G GD5 Kingston DDR3-1600 2x4GB 10-11-11-28 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB Western Digital 160GB 7200RPM 8MB Maxtor 250GB 7200RPM 8MB ThermalTake Frio Silent 14 
OSOSOSMonitor
Windows 10 Enterprise Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa OphCrack ASUS VS228HR 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair VS650 Delux Delux Gaming 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo P8700 G72GX NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M  Hyundai Electronics  
RAMRAM
Hyundai Electronics  Hyundai Electronics  
  hide details  
Desktop PC
(15 items)
 
ASUS ROG G72GX
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II x4 960T BE ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 4G GD5 Kingston DDR3-1600 2x4GB 10-11-11-28 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Maxtor 6Y080L0 80GB 7200 RPM 8MB Western Digital 160GB 7200RPM 8MB Maxtor 250GB 7200RPM 8MB ThermalTake Frio Silent 14 
OSOSOSMonitor
Windows 10 Enterprise Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa OphCrack ASUS VS228HR 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair VS650 Delux Delux Gaming 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo P8700 G72GX NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M  Hyundai Electronics  
RAMRAM
Hyundai Electronics  Hyundai Electronics  
  hide details  
post #1203 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomTaco View Post

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but there's a few things I don't understand. For starters are these theories based on the single Ashes of the Singularity benchmark? IIRC the game was developed with AMD helping the dev out. Would it be crazy to assume there were choices made that specifically improved performance for AMD? I'm not saying they necessarily actively made choices that hampered NVIDIA intentionally or even directly, but if true I'd assume some choices made would specifically benefit AMD while not helping, or potentially hurting NVIDIA hardware. Assuming this is all still based on Ashes alone, that's a single engine. There's at least half a dozen other engines out there that either have dx12 support or have it coming that are not necessarily going to behave the same way, so doesn't it seem a bit too early to draw any conclusions based on a sample size of 1?

You should read this http://www.oxidegames.com/2015/08/16/the-birth-of-a-new-api/
Quote:
Our code has been reviewed by Nvidia, Microsoft, AMD and Intel. It has passed the very thorough D3D12 validation system provided by Microsoft specifically designed to validate against incorrect usages. All IHVs have had access to our source code for over year, and we can confirm that both Nvidia and AMD compile our very latest changes on a daily basis and have been running our application in their labs for months. Fundamentally, the MSAA path is essentially unchanged in DX11 and DX12. Any statement which says there is a bug in the application should be disregarded as inaccurate information.
Quote:
Often we get asked about fairness, that is, usually if in regards to treating Nvidia and AMD equally? Are we working closer with one vendor then another? The answer is that we have an open access policy. Our goal is to make our game run as fast as possible on everyone’s machine, regardless of what hardware our players have.

To this end, we have made our source code available to Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD and Intel for over a year. We have received a huge amount of feedback. For example, when Nvidia noticed that a specific shader was taking a particularly long time on their hardware, they offered an optimized shader that made things faster which we integrated into our code.

We only have two requirements for implementing vendor optimizations: We require that it not be a loss for other hardware implementations, and we require that it doesn’t move the engine architecture backward (that is, we are not jeopardizing the future for the present).

There is nvidia code in there. This will likely be one of the most fair benchmarks we will have. When nvidia gets their hands in a dx12 game things might look different. Other times thee IHVs won't have had as much access to the game. This particular benchmark has had everyone involved for a long time. If its not performing as might be desired, its likely because of the graphics card (and maybe driver).
post #1204 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalGameGuru View Post

AMD does not have the track record of nVidia on making their tech inaccessible or inefficient to their competitors in a premeditated fashion. When TressFX came out and nVidia had trouble they released the code to let nVidia optimize for it. Most AMD tech is made available for the industry as a whole to make use of and optimize, TressFX, FreeSync, Mantle, etc. nVidia could have made use of Mantle if they wished.
This doesn't really prove anything, past performance isn't an indicator of anything, it may hold merit sometimes, but without evidence it's nothing more than suspicion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ku4eto View Post

The game uses DirectX12 and makes fine use of the Asynchronous computing. This are the benefits for AMD. For nVidia , the only benefit is the DirectX12 more or less. They have not done anything to hinder both AMD and nVidia.
This doesn't say much either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by semitope View Post

You should read this http://www.oxidegames.com/2015/08/16/the-birth-of-a-new-api/

There is nvidia code in there. This will likely be one of the most fair benchmarks we will have. When nvidia gets their hands in a dx12 game things might look different. Other times thee IHVs won't have had as much access to the game. This particular benchmark has had everyone involved for a long time. If its not performing as might be desired, its likely because of the graphics card (and maybe driver).

This, though, does say something. I'm interested to see when UE4 based Ark launches the DX12 patch next week to get some more data points to add. While it is nice to know that they did open the source code up, it doesn't entirely mean it is unbiased. As I recall Oxide games was one of the first to work with AMD on mantle, meaning they had a past track record with AMD working on developing their engine. In that respect it makes me wonder whether or not they still did make choices that specifically benefitted AMD back with mantle that were repeated with Ashes. It also means (in theory at least), that AMD has had more than the past year working with Oxide on this title, whereas Intel and Nvidia have had a year working on it. I'm not calling foul play, but I am still questioning the data until more titles are launched based on different engines.
Project Taco
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770k Z87 G1 Sniper 5 EVGA 780 TI Classified EVGA 780 TI Classified 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
Avexir Core Series 4x4GB White Samsung 840 EVO Corsair H100i Noiseblocker eLoops 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 QNIX QX2710 QNIX QX2710 KBT Pure MX Whites 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA Supernova 1000W Gold NZXT H440 Func MS-3 O2/ODAC 
Audio
MrSpeakers Mad Dogs (Fostex T50RP Mod) 
  hide details  
Project Taco
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770k Z87 G1 Sniper 5 EVGA 780 TI Classified EVGA 780 TI Classified 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
Avexir Core Series 4x4GB White Samsung 840 EVO Corsair H100i Noiseblocker eLoops 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 QNIX QX2710 QNIX QX2710 KBT Pure MX Whites 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA Supernova 1000W Gold NZXT H440 Func MS-3 O2/ODAC 
Audio
MrSpeakers Mad Dogs (Fostex T50RP Mod) 
  hide details  
post #1205 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomTaco View Post

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but there's a few things I don't understand. For starters are these theories based on the single Ashes of the Singularity benchmark? IIRC the game was developed with AMD helping the dev out. Would it be crazy to assume there were choices made that specifically improved performance for AMD? I'm not saying they necessarily actively made choices that hampered NVIDIA intentionally or even directly, but if true I'd assume some choices made would specifically benefit AMD while not helping, or potentially hurting NVIDIA hardware. Assuming this is all still based on Ashes alone, that's a single engine. There's at least half a dozen other engines out there that either have dx12 support or have it coming that are not necessarily going to behave the same way, so doesn't it seem a bit too early to draw any conclusions based on a sample size of 1?

As the other poster has indicated.

The issue is that Nvidia had access to the DX12 code for over a year.
http://www.oxidegames.com/2015/08/16/the-birth-of-a-new-api/
Quote:
Our code has been reviewed by Nvidia, Microsoft, AMD and Intel. It has passed the very thorough D3D12 validation system provided by Microsoft specifically designed to validate against incorrect usages. All IHVs have had access to our source code for over year, and we can confirm that both Nvidia and AMD compile our very latest changes on a daily basis and have been running our application in their labs for months. Fundamentally, the MSAA path is essentially unchanged in DX11 and DX12. Any statement which says there is a bug in the application should be disregarded as inaccurate information.

...

Often we get asked about fairness, that is, usually if in regards to treating Nvidia and AMD equally? Are we working closer with one vendor then another? The answer is that we have an open access policy. Our goal is to make our game run as fast as possible on everyone’s machine, regardless of what hardware our players have.

To this end, we have made our source code available to Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD and Intel for over a year. We have received a huge amount of feedback. For example, when Nvidia noticed that a specific shader was taking a particularly long time on their hardware, they offered an optimized shader that made things faster which we integrated into our code.

We only have two requirements for implementing vendor optimizations: We require that it not be a loss for other hardware implementations, and we require that it doesn’t move the engine architecture backward (that is, we are not jeopardizing the future for the present).


This would suggest to me that Nvidia knew what was coming and there hasn't be excessive favoritism here and Nvidia even had the opportunity to contribute to improve performance for their hardware.



What Mahigan is saying is that historically, Nvidia has relied heavily on driver based optimizations. That has paid handsome dividends for DX11 performance. However the way they have designed their architecture - serial heavy, means that it will not do as well on DX12, where it more parallel intensive.

The other of course is that there is a close relationship between Mantle, compared with DX12 and Vulkan. AMD must have planned this together and built their architecture around that, even sacrificing DX11 performance (less money spent on DX11 drivers). In other words, if Mahigan's hypothesis is right, they played the long game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomTaco View Post

This, though, does say something. I'm interested to see when UE4 based Ark launches the DX12 patch next week to get some more data points to add. While it is nice to know that they did open the source code up, it doesn't entirely mean it is unbiased. As I recall Oxide games was one of the first to work with AMD on mantle, meaning they had a past track record with AMD working on developing their engine. In that respect it makes me wonder whether or not they still did make choices that specifically benefitted AMD back with mantle that were repeated with Ashes. It also means (in theory at least), that AMD has had more than the past year working with Oxide on this title, whereas Intel and Nvidia have had a year working on it. I'm not calling foul play, but I am still questioning the data until more titles are launched based on different engines.

Same here. I would like a bigger sample size to draw a definitive conclusion. See my response to Provost below for my full thoughts - I think that Mahigan's hypothesis is probable, but there are some mysteries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

Take Battlefield 4, it's a DX11 title that is heavy on draw calls (for a DX11 game):

PCIe 2.0 x8 is saturated already (8 GB/s). Now imagine having all those CPU cores, now available in DX12, making draw calls ontop of the textures etc travelling over the bus? For an AMD system, this is further compounded by the slow HT 3.1 link (12.8GB/s) and that's in the best case scenario (990/FX chipset). If you're using a 970 chipset, you're knocked down to HT 3.0 or 10.4 GB/s. The 3D Mark Overhead API test isn't sending textures either (or any other heavy command), it's only sending draw calls. So it really wouldn't show up on that test.

Again... just a theory.


The full review on TPU
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/

I suppose there's process of elimination. What is the Bulldozer/Steamroller architecture very weak at? Well there's raw single threaded performance and the module design isn't good at floating point, but there's got to be something specific.

The question is, what communicates between the GPU and CPU? That may be a good place to start. Another may be, what has Intel done decisively better?


Quote:
Originally Posted by provost View Post

Plus rep, as you have hit the gist of the counter argument on the head.
Mahigan's theory appeals to me because he has gone to great lengths to research and share his opinions as to the why AMD's architecture works better than Nvidia if the developers properly utilize the benefits of Dx12 to reduce the overhead. All I have seen by way of counter argument is why his theory doesn't work due to yet to be seen optimizations for Nvidia, which I interpret as follows:

a) until Nvidia catches up with Pascal architecture or
b) until developers have been incented enough to code away from consumer friendly dx 12 to put the pc gamers in the same position as they were in with dx11, I.e there ain't no such thing as a free (lunch) performance, if you what more performance you got to pay for it. tongue.gif

But, no one has proposed an alternative detailed theory that demystifies the dx 12 performance riddle of the GPU makers tongue.gif

+Rep

This is basically where we are at:
  • We know that something is causing the DX12 leap in AMD's arch. We don't know what, but Mahigan's hypothesis is the design of AMD's architecture, which they optimized around for DX12, perhaps at the expense of DX11.
  • At the moment, AMD is at a drawback and needs that market/mind-share. Combined with GCN consoles, they may have narrowed the gap in their ability to drive future games development.
  • The opportunity for driver based optimizations is far more limited in DX12, due to it's "close to metal" nature.
  • Nvidia can and will catch up. They have the money and mindshare to do so. The question is when? Pascal? Or is it very compute centric, in which case they may go with Volta.

I would agree that there hasn't been any well researched, well thought out alternative hypothesis. That is not to say that Mahigan's ideas are infallible - they are not, as we still do not have a conclusive explanation as to why the Fury X does not scale very well (and apparently a second mystery now - the AMD CPU's poor performance). Left unresolved, that may require a substantial modification to any hypothesis. Personally I accept that it's the most probable explanation right now.

I think that in the short term, this may help stem the tide for AMD, perhaps a generation or maybe two. But in the long run, they still are at a drawback. They have been cutting R&D money for GPUs and focusing mostly on Zen for example. AMD simply does not have the kind of money to spend. Nvidia is outspending them. In the long run, I fear there will be a reversal if they cannot come up with something competitive.

For AMD though, it's very important they figure out what is the problem, because they need to know where the transistor budget should go for the next generation (although admittedly, if the rumors are true, it's already taped out - it's important to keep in mind that GPUs are designed years in advance).




Remember everyone - it's best to keep 2 GPU vendors that are very competitive with each other. That's when the consumer wins. We want the best performance for a competitive price. For that reason, I'm hoping that AMD actually wins the next GPU round - and that Zen is a success (IMO, Intel monopoly is also bad for us). A monopoly is a lose for us.
Edited by CrazyElf - 8/29/15 at 4:02pm
Trooper Typhoon
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820K X99A XPower MSI r9 290X Lightning  MSI r9 290X Lightning 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill Trident Z 32 Gb Samsung SM843T 960 GB Western Digital Caviar Black 2Tb Samsung 850 Pro 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingOS
LG WH14NS40 Cryorig R1 Ultimate 9x Gentle Typhoon 1850 rpm on case Windows 7 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Korean 27" 2560x1440 Ducky Legend with Vortex PBT Doubleshot Backlit... EVGA 1300W G2 Cooler Master Storm Trooper 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Asus Xonar Essence STX 
  hide details  
Trooper Typhoon
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820K X99A XPower MSI r9 290X Lightning  MSI r9 290X Lightning 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill Trident Z 32 Gb Samsung SM843T 960 GB Western Digital Caviar Black 2Tb Samsung 850 Pro 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingOS
LG WH14NS40 Cryorig R1 Ultimate 9x Gentle Typhoon 1850 rpm on case Windows 7 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Korean 27" 2560x1440 Ducky Legend with Vortex PBT Doubleshot Backlit... EVGA 1300W G2 Cooler Master Storm Trooper 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Asus Xonar Essence STX 
  hide details  
post #1206 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

I thought that draw calls were set by API/Driver because amd suggested the bottleneck on DX11 were the draw calls .but I had seen tgat AMD suggested that dying light required 40k or 70k draw calls

And now tell this


It might based on the graphic engine code,driver and maybe well the API?

ΒF4 is the same exact game regardless of graphics API- there are no extra things drawn under Mantle.
Mastodon
(11 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 M5A99FX Pro 2.0 Asus R9 290X DirectCU II Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Pny SSD 240GB CM Nepton 280L Win 8.1 Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync 
PowerCaseMouse
XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G300 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
Mastodon
(11 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 M5A99FX Pro 2.0 Asus R9 290X DirectCU II Crucial Ballistix 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Pny SSD 240GB CM Nepton 280L Win 8.1 Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync 
PowerCaseMouse
XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G300 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
post #1207 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

What Mahigan is saying is that historically, Nvidia has relied heavily on driver based optimizations. That has paid handsome dividends for DX11 performance. However the way they have designed their architecture - serial heavy, means that it will not do as well on DX12, where it more parallel intensive.

And yet even in this benchmark, which would appear to be well-suited to AMD's hardware, the Fury X is still neck and neck with the 980 Ti. The real issue the benchmark highlights, to me anyway, is not that AMD's DX12 performance is so good, but that their DX11 performance (particularly in this example) is so bad. I don't see how you can look at this one benchmark and draw the conclusion that AMD has a better architecture for the future, when their premier card is still tied with Nvidia's (likewise for the 980 and 390X).

Edit: And if anyone is curious, here are the Gen 3/Gen 2 results for the 3DMark API test on a 290X: (Gen 2 / Gen 3)

DX11 ST: 1,298,473 / 1,265,204
DX11 MT: 1,324,209 / 1,311,353
Mantle: 18,476,350 / 18,917,266
DX12: 17,774,164 / 20,542,867

So Mantle and DX12 are faster, but somehow DX11 is slower in Gen 3.

www.3dmark.com/3dm/8388481
www.3dmark.com/3dm/8388578
Edited by Forceman - 8/29/15 at 4:31pm
post #1208 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomTaco View Post

This doesn't really prove anything, past performance isn't an indicator of anything, it may hold merit sometimes, but without evidence it's nothing more than suspicion.
This doesn't say much either.
This, though, does say something. I'm interested to see when UE4 based Ark launches the DX12 patch next week to get some more data points to add. While it is nice to know that they did open the source code up, it doesn't entirely mean it is unbiased. As I recall Oxide games was one of the first to work with AMD on mantle, meaning they had a past track record with AMD working on developing their engine. In that respect it makes me wonder whether or not they still did make choices that specifically benefitted AMD back with mantle that were repeated with Ashes. It also means (in theory at least), that AMD has had more than the past year working with Oxide on this title, whereas Intel and Nvidia have had a year working on it. I'm not calling foul play, but I am still questioning the data until more titles are launched based on different engines.

Wow, there are lots of posts here, so I'll only respond to the last one. The interest in this subject is higher then we thought. The primary evolution of the benchmark is for our own internal testing, so it's pretty important that it be representative of the gameplay. To keep things clean, I'm not going to make very many comments on the concept of bias and fairness, as it can completely go down a rat hole.

Certainly I could see how one might see that we are working closer with one hardware vendor then the other, but the numbers don't really bare that out. Since we've started, I think we've had about 3 site visits from NVidia, 3 from AMD, and 2 from Intel ( and 0 from Microsoft, but they never come visit anyone ;(). Nvidia was actually a far more active collaborator over the summer then AMD was, If you judged from email traffic and code-checkins, you'd draw the conclusion we were working closer with Nvidia rather than AMD wink.gif As you've pointed out, there does exist a marketing agreement between Stardock (our publisher) for Ashes with AMD. But this is typical of almost every major PC game I've ever worked on (Civ 5 had a marketing agreement with NVidia, for example). Without getting into the specifics, I believe the primary goal of AMD is to promote D3D12 titles as they have also lined up a few other D3D12 games.

If you use this metric, however, given Nvidia's promotions with Unreal (and integration with Gameworks) you'd have to say that every Unreal game is biased, not to mention virtually every game that's commonly used as a benchmark since most of them have a promotion agreement with someone. Certainly, one might argue that Unreal being an engine with many titles should give it particular weight, and I wouldn't disagree. However, Ashes is not the only game being developed with Nitrous. It is also being used in several additional titles right now, the only announced one being the Star Control reboot. (Which I am super excited about! But that's a completely other topic wink.gif).

Personally, I think one could just as easily make the claim that we were biased toward Nvidia as the only 'vendor' specific code is for Nvidia where we had to shutdown async compute. By vendor specific, I mean a case where we look at the Vendor ID and make changes to our rendering path. Curiously, their driver reported this feature was functional but attempting to use it was an unmitigated disaster in terms of performance and conformance so we shut it down on their hardware. As far as I know, Maxwell doesn't really have Async Compute so I don't know why their driver was trying to expose that. The only other thing that is different between them is that Nvidia does fall into Tier 2 class binding hardware instead of Tier 3 like AMD which requires a little bit more CPU overhead in D3D12, but I don't think it ended up being very significant. This isn't a vendor specific path, as it's responding to capabilities the driver reports.

From our perspective, one of the surprising things about the results is just how good Nvidia's DX11 perf is. But that's a very recent development, with huge CPU perf improvements over the last month. Still, DX12 CPU overhead is still far far better on Nvidia, and we haven't even tuned it as much as DX11. The other surprise is that of the min frame times having the 290X beat out the 980 Ti (as reported on Ars Techinica). Unlike DX11, minimum frame times are mostly an application controlled feature so I was expecting it to be close to identical. This would appear to be GPU side variance, rather then software variance. We'll have to dig into this one.

I suspect that one thing that is helping AMD on GPU performance is D3D12 exposes Async Compute, which D3D11 did not. Ashes uses a modest amount of it, which gave us a noticeable perf improvement. It was mostly opportunistic where we just took a few compute tasks we were already doing and made them asynchronous, Ashes really isn't a poster-child for advanced GCN features.

Our use of Async Compute, however, pales with comparisons to some of the things which the console guys are starting to do. Most of those haven't made their way to the PC yet, but I've heard of developers getting 30% GPU performance by using Async Compute. Too early to tell, of course, but it could end being pretty disruptive in a year or so as these GCN built and optimized engines start coming to the PC. I don't think Unreal titles will show this very much though, so likely we'll have to wait to see. Has anyone profiled Ark yet?

In the end, I think everyone has to give AMD alot of credit for not objecting to our collaborative effort with Nvidia even though the game had a marketing deal with them. They never once complained about it, and it certainly would have been within their right to do so. (Complain, anyway, we would have still done it, wink.gif)

--
P.S. There is no war of words between us and Nvidia. Nvidia made some incorrect statements, and at this point they will not dispute our position if you ask their PR. That is, they are not disputing anything in our blog. I believe the initial confusion was because Nvidia PR was putting pressure on us to disable certain settings in the benchmark, when we refused, I think they took it a little too personally.
post #1209 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyElf View Post

As the other poster has indicated.

The issue is that Nvidia had access to the DX12 code for over a year.
http://www.oxidegames.com/2015/08/16/the-birth-of-a-new-api/
This would suggest to me that Nvidia knew what was coming and there hasn't be excessive favoritism here and Nvidia even had the opportunity to contribute to improve performance for their hardware.



What Mahigan is saying is that historically, Nvidia has relied heavily on driver based optimizations. That has paid handsome dividends for DX11 performance. However the way they have designed their architecture - serial heavy, means that it will not do as well on DX12, where it more parallel intensive.

The other of course is that there is a close relationship between Mantle, compared with DX12 and Vulkan. AMD must have planned this together and built their architecture around that, even sacrificing DX11 performance (less money spent on DX11 drivers). In other words, if Mahigan's hypothesis is right, they played the long game.
Same here. I would like a bigger sample size to draw a definitive conclusion. See my response to Provost below for my full thoughts - I think that Mahigan's hypothesis is probable, but there are some mysteries.
The full review on TPU
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling/

I suppose there's process of elimination. What is the Bulldozer/Steamroller architecture very weak at? Well there's raw single threaded performance and the module design isn't good at floating point, but there's got to be something specific.

The question is, what communicates between the GPU and CPU? That may be a good place to start. Another may be, what has Intel done decisively better?
+Rep

This is basically where we are at:
  • We know that something is causing the DX12 leap in AMD's arch. We don't know what, but Mahigan's hypothesis is the design of AMD's architecture, which they optimized around for DX12, perhaps at the expense of DX11.
  • At the moment, AMD is at a drawback and needs that market/mind-share. Combined with GCN consoles, they may have narrowed the gap in their ability to drive future games development.
  • The opportunity for driver based optimizations is far more limited in DX12, due to it's "close to metal" nature.
  • Nvidia can and will catch up. They have the money and mindshare to do so. The question is when? Pascal? Or is it very compute centric, in which case they may go with Volta.

I would agree that there hasn't been any well researched, well thought out alternative hypothesis. That is not to say that Mahigan's ideas are infallible - they are not, as we still do not have a conclusive explanation as to why the Fury X does not scale very well (and apparently a second mystery now - the AMD CPU's poor performance). Left unresolved, that may require a substantial modification to any hypothesis. Personally I accept that it's the most probable explanation right now.

I think that in the short term, this may help stem the tide for AMD, perhaps a generation or maybe two. But in the long run, they still are at a drawback. They have been cutting R&D money for GPUs and focusing mostly on Zen for example. AMD simply does not have the kind of money to spend. Nvidia is outspending them. In the long run, I fear there will be a reversal if they cannot come up with something competitive.

For AMD though, it's very important they figure out what is the problem, because they need to know where the transistor budget should go for the next generation (although admittedly, if the rumors are true, it's already taped out - it's important to keep in mind that GPUs are designed years in advance).




Remember everyone - it's best to keep 2 GPU vendors that are very competitive with each other. That's when the consumer wins. We want the best performance for a competitive price. For that reason, I'm hoping that AMD actually wins the next GPU round - and that Zen is a success (IMO, Intel monopoly is also bad for us). A monopoly is a lose for us.

Thank you for a very illuminating post. It's better than the other responses I got that threw something out there with little background info or little logic/support, rep for that alone. Having access for the past year like I said in my post is great, but AMD has been working with Oxide for far longer than that. We know this, and this isn't new information by any means. Let me preface what I'm going to say next with this is all pure conjecture and speculation, but it's one reason why I still have my doubts. Let me also preface with I am not remotely an expert in APIs, merely following logic. When you design something, anything really, you have a groundwork. You have a basis upon which you build everything else upon. If you started this groundwork in collaboration with someone, there is every reason to believe that both worked together to set up and establish this framework; how it runs at a very basic level, what is chosen to execute which types of commands, how they are executed, etc. Now if you are doing so with someone who ALSO happens to be one of the people that will be making use of this going forward, profiting off of it (indirectly) and working as a company to make it as good as possible for themselves, there is going to be opportunity. Opportunity to really show off what your product is capable, opportunity to meld the way things are done going forward. There's also opportunity to potentially make decisions that will SPECIFICALLY benefit YOUR PRODUCTS at a fundamental level. Am I saying it was done with ill intention? Not remotely, you want it to work well, and you want people that buy your product to feel like they made the right decision in choosing you. No harm, no foul on that whatsoever. There is also a darker side to it, potentially. You could also ACTIVELY choose to lay in a framework that INTENTIONALLY benefits your products OVER your competitor. And if it's something that's been laid in at the onset, before anyone else had access to it, by the time it's opened up to others, it may be something that can no longer be changed without tearing down the entire foundation. Am I saying this is the case? No, not at all. Am I saying it is possible? Maybe. Intentional? I don't know, and it doesn't serve to prove anything remotely important had it been intentional or not. But this illustrates my point, because AMD has been tied in with Oxide since at least 2013 according to a Google News search. That means (in theory) they've had at minimum a year's worth of time working with Oxide before NVIDIA or Intel got access to their new engine.

Yes NVIDIA was given access and they do so nicely point out a specific example of where NVIDIA made changes to help improve performance on their hardware. That still doesn't account for the full year minimum AMD had helping develop and lay the groundwork with Oxide. And yes before anyone points it out I see where it says that their requirements include not beinga loss for other hardware implementations and it doesn't drive the engine arch backward. As I've understood it DX12 and Mantle both are reinventing the way games are developed and rendered, providing developers with options and power before untapped and unconsidered, the full extent of which is going to take a good while to fully comb through and make use of. Who's to say that at the onset the choices made were obvious? That it was obvious that going with option A instead of option B would end up costing other competitors potential performance opportunities? Who's to say that Oxide would have been able to tell, or even AMD had it not been intended as such?

Provost post is very thought provoking, and well laid out, but not without potential flaws/questions. Why is it that he only interprets optimizations as meaning either new hardware or incentivizing developers. It may be something far simpler, it may be something far more complex, there is most certainly always another alternative. Most games are based on other makers engines (UE4, Frostbite ETC). It comes down to those engine developers making active decisions regarding the future of their engines based on the market. The market right now is very heavily NVIDIA saturated for better or worse (I'd argue for worse). So, if you're a developer making a new engine, and you want it to run seamlessly on the majority of the market, which would you choose to work with to ensure that? Probably the one that has the most market share, meaning your customers products will run fantastically on their customers hardware. So when a game comes out on an engine that happens to run better on the less established platform, it raises questions (not skepticism, just questions). Is this because that platform happens to be better suited for this new engine and API? If so, fantastic, that's a boon for everyone because it brings that competitor back into the spotlight and lets them try to reclaim market share. But if it's because you've been working with them extensively for several years prior to even launching the game or the engine, then more questions arise.

As you've said, I've said, and I'm sure countless dozens of others have said, we are basing this all on a single pre release game, a single engine. It's the first foray into DX12 and we're trying to draw conclusions and claim victories and try to stem losses. I'm not in favor of any of this garbage. I'm most certainly with you in that I want AMD to succeed, I was on the verge of buying a Fury X and holding off on a 980TI until it came out and personally didn't appeal to me enough. That being said I still see AMD as a very viable option, and will basically recommend AMD at every level but the flagship purely because of price performance. But all we have is a single data point, a single source to draw conclusions from, and that in and of itself invalidates any conclusions we can make from it, it's barely a stone's throw away from conjecture. All I'm adding to it is more conjecture saying let's hold off, let's wait for more to come out, and then we can start drawing conclusions.
Project Taco
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770k Z87 G1 Sniper 5 EVGA 780 TI Classified EVGA 780 TI Classified 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
Avexir Core Series 4x4GB White Samsung 840 EVO Corsair H100i Noiseblocker eLoops 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 QNIX QX2710 QNIX QX2710 KBT Pure MX Whites 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA Supernova 1000W Gold NZXT H440 Func MS-3 O2/ODAC 
Audio
MrSpeakers Mad Dogs (Fostex T50RP Mod) 
  hide details  
Project Taco
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770k Z87 G1 Sniper 5 EVGA 780 TI Classified EVGA 780 TI Classified 
RAMHard DriveCoolingCooling
Avexir Core Series 4x4GB White Samsung 840 EVO Corsair H100i Noiseblocker eLoops 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 QNIX QX2710 QNIX QX2710 KBT Pure MX Whites 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA Supernova 1000W Gold NZXT H440 Func MS-3 O2/ODAC 
Audio
MrSpeakers Mad Dogs (Fostex T50RP Mod) 
  hide details  
post #1210 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kollock View Post

Personally, I think one could just as easily make the claim that we were biased toward Nvidia as the only 'vendor' specific code is for Nvidia where we had to shutdown async compute. By vendor specific, I mean a case where we look at the Vendor ID and make changes to our rendering path. Curiously, their driver reported this feature was functional but attempting to use it was an unmitigated disaster in terms of performance and conformance so we shut it down on their hardware. As far as I know, Maxwell doesn't really have Async Compute so I don't know why their driver was trying to expose that. The only other thing that is different between them is that Nvidia does fall into Tier 2 class binding hardware instead of Tier 3 like AMD which requires a little bit more CPU overhead in D3D12, but I don't think it ended up being very significant. This isn't a vendor specific path, as it's responding to capabilities the driver reports.

Wait, so all this analysis and conclusions about how async compute is going to make AMD's architecture the better one in the future, and this benchmark doesn't even use async compute on the Nvidia side?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Various] Ashes of the Singularity DX12 Benchmarks