Originally Posted by DigiHound Asynchronous compute is not a mandatory component of the DirectX 12 specification
. It's ONE type of computational engine that DX12 supports. It's not the only type and it's not the sole qualifier that determines whether or not a benchmark is "really" DX12. In fact, you're committing the same error that led people to insist that DX11 benchmarks weren't "real" benchmarks if they didn't include huge amounts of tessellation (which played to the strengths of Nvidia's Fermi).
AMD has full access to Futuremark's source code. They have not raised the alarm. They have not issued press releases or whitepapers arguing against the way Futuremark implemented Time Spy. You can trust that, because AMD has a long and illustrious history of discussing why certain benchmarks aren't a fair way to evaluate the performance of its hardware. From Sysmark 2002 to the present day, when AMD has a problem with a major industry test, it makes that problem public.
Futuremark wrote a benchmark in line with the DX12 specification that's in-use today. Given the way that its past tests have evolved, it will probably patch that benchmark in the future to take advantage of higher feature levels when those feature levels are accurately reflected in other shipping titles. Choosing to emphasize compatibility over maximum feature level presentation expands the test base for DX12 graphics testing -- and yes, as a company that builds benchmarks that Intel, AMD, and NV use internally for product profiling, they have an interest in ensuring that their programs can be used to qualify current-generation products.
Also, I'd like to point out that AMD GPUs can't run a true Feature Level 12_1 at this point without falling back to 12_0 features in some areas. Each of the three companies has a different degree of support for DX12 features right now, and the fighting over feature levels reflects a continued lack of understanding among users
regarding what it means to support DX12. That's understandable -- this **** is incredibly complex and often poorly understood, even by the press. But a lack of understanding by users, however understandable, doesn't translate into ethical violations by Futuremark.