Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [TechSpot] New Ashes of the Singularity DX11/12 tests. 1080p, 1440p, and 4K
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TechSpot] New Ashes of the Singularity DX11/12 tests. 1080p, 1440p, and 4K - Page 3

post #21 of 52
Guys, come on..

It's been stated numerous times, and by the devs themselves that the amount of Async in this games is negligible. It's pointless saying "But, but, i thought Nvidia was doomed. rolleyes.gif".

The only reason AMD has improved a bit is due to reduced driver overhead, it has nothing to do with Async. At this point no game uses enough Async to show off AMD's parallelism. When games do start using it (and they will, quite a few have already confirmed they are) Nvidias hardware will take a hit, it's not a question of if, but when.

But it honestly doesn't really matter, by the time those "next gen" games drop, people would of more than enjoyed their 980 TI's. The only people this will affect in the future are those who don't upgrade often.

The only time you could say AMD has an advantage with Async, is if Pascal also has gimped hardware scheduling, or if you're planning to keep your GPU for a couple of years. At this point Nvidia has already "won", most people have already bought 970's and 80's, AMD's superior architecture means nothing right now because no one is using it.

There's no point downplaying Async just because you're on team green, it's going to be a huge deal, and will benefit both vendors in the future. AMD might just benefit more in the short term. thumb.gif
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post


This. biggrin.gif
Not really. Across the board for the 980Ti vs Fury X, nVidia beats AMD in BOTH DX11 and DX12. Same for the 980 vs 390X, nVidia beats AMD in both DX11 and DX12. It is only when you drop down to the next lower tier of cards (970 vs 390) that AMD beats nVidia in DX12, but nVidia ties it up when it switches to DX11. Now when you get to the 960 vs 380, that is where AMD finally beats nVidia regardless of DX11 or DX12.


I hate to enter AMD vs Nvidia.your Post has nothing to do with my post.I don't talk about AMD vs Nvidia.

on Nvidia Side , All DX11 numbers are higher than DX12.

on AMD side, all DX12 numbers are higher than DX11.

post #23 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xuper View Post


I hate to enter AMD vs Nvidia.your Post has nothing to do with my post.I don't talk about AMD vs Nvidia.
on Nvidia Side , All DX11 numbers are higher than DX12.
on AMD side, all DX12 numbers are higher than DX11.

Yes, all the nVidia cards have faster DX11 numbers than DX12 number.
No, not all the AMD cards have faster DX12 number than DX11 numbers. The R9 380 has higher DX11 numbers than DX12 numbers.

If you don't want to compare DX12 to DX12, but rather just want to compare the fastest score between categories. The gap between nVidia and AMD widens even further. I was being nice and compared Apples to Apples.

For example, 980Ti in DX12 vs Fury X in DX12. In that case, it's only a 1 FPS advantage for nVidia @ 1080p.

If you want to compare THE FASTEST regardless of DX implementation, then the gap widens even more ... 4 FPS @ 1080. At 1440p, it goes from an "apples to apples" DX12 of 1 FPS to 3 FPS, etc.

But no, you are only half right ... all DX11 numbers are higher for nVidia than DX12, but not all AMD numbers are higher using DX12 as opposed to DX11. I'm just saying.
post #24 of 52
I'm not sure why doing new benchmark when using older drivers. Plus for nvidia GPUs there is obviously a lot of work on optimization so DX12 is very least equal to DX11. The CPU test is nice, but the game is bottlenecked on GPU most of the time. So unless they are doing low-midrange CPUs it won't bring much to the table.

Anandtech article was interesting, this one not so much.
post #25 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatolisk View Post

I'm not sure why doing new benchmark when using older drivers.

Old drivers? Where are you getting your information?

Please quote to me from the article from 1 day ago what drivers they are using.
post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatolisk View Post

I'm not sure why doing new benchmark when using older drivers.

Latest nvidia drivers available at the time of the article was published: 358.50. The same drivers the article is using.
Latest AMD drivers available at the time of the article was published: 15.7.1. The same drivers the article is using.

Next nvidia drivers were published, today. After the article was published. To add profiles to newly released games.
Next AMD drivers were published, the day of the article. And improvements were mainly the UI.

So your statement is mostly wrong.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post

Guys, come on..

It's been stated numerous times, and by the devs themselves that the amount of Async in this games is negligible. It's pointless saying "But, but, i thought Nvidia was doomed. rolleyes.gif".

The only reason AMD has improved a bit is due to reduced driver overhead, it has nothing to do with Async. At this point no game uses enough Async to show off AMD's parallelism. When games do start using it (and they will, quite a few have already confirmed they are) Nvidias hardware will take a hit, it's not a question of if, but when.
This is a wholly illogical viewpoint. If asynchronous compute is being minimally utilized in these DX12 benchmarks, then we literally have nothing demonstrating its worth whatsoever. The only reason async compute became such a hot topic im the first place is because AOTS was supposedly using it and giving AMD the edge. If that is not the case, then you can't determine what impact async compute will have, if any. As such, it remains a simple buzzword(s) at this point; more of an "if", not a "when". Or perhaps more accurately, it remains a "how much".

Furthermore, Fable Legends was hyped up to be using async shaders before the benchmarks; only afterwards when the reference 980 Ti came out on top (quite heavily in certain compute sections) did the whole "only using 5% async" revelation happen.

Which begs the important question: What makes anyone think the other upcoming async compute using games will be significantly different? Developers haven't given concrete numbers on to what degree it's going to be used nor how much it will actually benefit different GPUs. The only demonstrations of async compute out there are both wholly uneventful and consistently minimal in their usage (the latter detail not even being initially known or communicated). Why should the other games be any different?

Quote:
But it honestly doesn't really matter, by the time those "next gen" games drop, people would of more than enjoyed their 980 TI's. The only people this will affect in the future are those who don't upgrade often.

The only time you could say AMD has an advantage with Async, is if Pascal also has gimped hardware scheduling, or if you're planning to keep your GPU for a couple of years. At this point Nvidia has already "won", most people have already bought 970's and 80's, AMD's superior architecture means nothing right now because no one is using it.
You're correct in that it doesn't matter to current products or resulting revenue, but incorrect (or rather baseless/extremely premature) in your assumption that AMD's architecture is "superior". Like I and anyone making excuses for current DX12 numbers both say, there isn't a single demonstration of async compute's worth or GCN's resulting superiority at the moment.

A superior architecture could be defined in many ways. Perf/transistor, Perf/manufacturing cost, Perf/watt, etc. for the target market are examples. GCN demonstrates superiority through none of them. Only massive deficits really. I mean honestly, take a look at the Fury X vs 980 Ti.

The Fury X (Fiji XT) has ~15-20% more functional transistors (considering the 980 Ti's cut-down) and a CLC/HBM helping it, yet gets beaten OC to OC by the latter by 20-25% in performance even in these DX12 benchmarks that fix AMD's overhead and still use some amount of async compute with no greater power efficiency.

Even if async compute helps Fiji by 20-30%, it won't overtake GM200 in the above metrics but merely get close. And async compute's impact is still a big, undemonstrated question mark at this point. Deciding GCN is superior based on nothing but conjecture (about one microarchitectural decision) is pretty foolish; it's actually quite massively behind by all/most demonstrated metrics and has a looot of ground to cover from undocumented gains before it can even match Maxwell's all-around efficiency, let alone demonstrate any superiority.

Given its contemporary inferiority and lack of suitability to existing software, GCN's design decisions are much more arguably inferior to Maxwell's. The supposed benefit of async compute takes up transistors that could have been put elsewhere and haven't even remotely demonstrated their value yet. Even without asynchronous compute and regardless of API, Maxwell has demonstrated excellent transistor efficiency for its target market. Maybe it's an all-around superior design as a result; that's certainly the narrative actually being shown thus far.

Don't jump to baseless conclusions. Literally nothing so far supports said conclusion, after all, remember?

Quote:
There's no point downplaying Async just because you're on team green, it's going to be a huge deal, and will benefit both vendors in the future. AMD might just benefit more in the short term. thumb.gif
Correction: There's no logical point in hyping up a feature that literally doesn't have a single positive demonstration just because of speculation; the source of which (AOTS) has been discredited due to minimal async usage thereby rendering the whole demonstration a false positive. Judging things according to actual, empirical facts with reservations about the future is an objective standpoint. I'm "downplaying" hype and adamant opinions based on nothing (except AOTS's false positive), not making an opposing adamant claim about asynchronous compute.

Basically, I'm saying wait and see. So far, there's nothing to see. This is a fact, so how does recognition of it make anyone on "team green"? Adamantly insisting async compute is worthless based on nothing would be biased. So too would adamantly insisting async compute makes GCN superior based on nothing. Recognizing reality with the understanding that the future may change, but to an unknown and unproven degree is just being objective. Being skeptical and critical as a result until actually being shown a shred of evidence otherwise is also objective.
Edited by Serandur - 11/4/15 at 6:43am
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 52
Benchmarks without min FPS are useless. I have the game and the experience was much better with the 980TI running on DX12. Gonna post here my results after I get back home from work comparing DX11 with DX12.
post #29 of 52
I just want sli/crossfire to work as well as a single gpu. They could sell me the same card every time. biggrin.gif
Hot n Bothered
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4690k Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkII 2 EVGA GTX 980 FTW PNY 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston 2x Kingston v300 120gb RAID 0 WD Blue ASUS 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Cooler Master 212 Evo Windows 7 HP w2408h NZXT HALE82 V2 
CaseOther
Corsair 450D I have pretty lights.  
  hide details  
Reply
Hot n Bothered
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4690k Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkII 2 EVGA GTX 980 FTW PNY 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston 2x Kingston v300 120gb RAID 0 WD Blue ASUS 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Cooler Master 212 Evo Windows 7 HP w2408h NZXT HALE82 V2 
CaseOther
Corsair 450D I have pretty lights.  
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 52
Interesting they are using old AMD drivers. AMD made some optimizations on newer drivers for AOTS. But of course those drivers werent used.
My Rig
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k @ 4.1Ghz  Asus z87-Plus XFX Double D r9 290X G Skill Sniper 8GB @ 2133 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
Windows 10 Pro 27 Inch 1440P PLS @ 110Hz Mechanical Keyboard MX Red Steelseries Kana 
Mouse PadAudio
Steelseries Mouse pad Samson SR850 Headphones/Asus Xonar Sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
My Rig
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k @ 4.1Ghz  Asus z87-Plus XFX Double D r9 290X G Skill Sniper 8GB @ 2133 
OSMonitorKeyboardMouse
Windows 10 Pro 27 Inch 1440P PLS @ 110Hz Mechanical Keyboard MX Red Steelseries Kana 
Mouse PadAudio
Steelseries Mouse pad Samson SR850 Headphones/Asus Xonar Sound card 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [TechSpot] New Ashes of the Singularity DX11/12 tests. 1080p, 1440p, and 4K