Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark - Page 60

post #591 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiHound View Post

Joel Hruska. I'm currently the senior editor at ExtremeTech, I've previously written for Hot Hardware, Ars Technica, Tech Report, and Sudhian/Via Hardware if you go all the way back to 2001.

As of this writing, no one at AMD is running this up the radar or claiming its an issue. No statements have been issued, no problems have been noted. To the best of my knowledge, there are no plans to do so. This just isn't a problem and Futuremark wouldn't be publicly claiming that AMD had source code access if it wasn't true.

Also, just for the record -- to the best of my knowledge, Jarnis' statement that all DX12 games target FL_11 is *also* true. That includes Ashes of the Singularity. This really isn't an issue of feature levels because asynchronous compute isn't defined at any specific DX12 feature level, because async compute isn't *part* of any DX12 feature level. At least some of the posts here seem to be confused on that point.

This still doesn't matter to me until I see this from somewhere else other than YOU lol .

"You people are signing up to fight a war in defense of AMD based on perceived flaws AMD hasn't highlighted and on an issue where no one seems to have a problem."

No one seems to have a problem ? Really dude? Read the posts. ALOT of people have a problem with the benchmark and it's favoring of Nvidias Dx12s implementation. Lol but then again.. you also made a comment about async that the more I read the more I giggle. Even another member picked up on it. Lolol
Edited by kfxsti - 7/19/16 at 1:41pm
post #592 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigiHound View Post


Oh, for the love of... ok, look. We need to talk about how benchmarks get written and *why.*

Benchmarks exist because hardware customers want to know how equipment performs in a test run that's relevant to whatever their criteria happen to be. Yes, companies might well prefer to be able to craft benchmark routines that only use commands and tests that show their hardware in the best possible light. But customers don't just care about the company's preferred internal criteria -- they want to see workloads represent *their* needs and use cases.
--

You people are signing up to fight a war in defense of AMD based on perceived flaws AMD hasn't highlighted and on an issue where no one seems to have a problem.

 

I'm not assuming that 3dmark is compromised or that Nvidia threw a spanner into the works but there are legitimate questions about the validity of the benchmark (as there are for all benchmarks) vis-à-vis gaming workloads. I don't doubt that the Futuremark folks have good intentions nor do I think that I could do a 'better job', as FMJarvis so sincerely asked of us. That doesn't mean I'd ever base a purchasing decision off of 3dmark results nor would I advise anybody else to do so. Like any benchmark, Time Spy reports results based on an exact set of criteria which does not necessarily align with those which are part and parcel to games. It doesn't make it 'bad' or 'irrelevant' but it should raise points of critical contention over whether or not it's representative of DX12 implementation out in the wild. 

 

I'd say it fairly represents one tack which a developer may take under DX12 but as with any benchmark it is by no means exhaustive. This is all the more so under an API like DX12 (or Vulkan) which allows for more tailored development than under DX11. In that sense I can't say that I'd consider this a fair representation of DX12 performance for both brands; I would call it a fair representation of DX12 performance under a particular set of parameters which may or may not be replicated in a gaming scenario. That this benchmark will be used in reviews and considered a representation of DX12 performance en toto is where I believe the root of contention lies.

 

No need for hyperbole - arguments over a synthetic benchmark do not a war make. Expecting there to be no contention over a synthetic is a bit optimistic, IME.

 
 
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 4.0 GHz 1.37v o/s  Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB HBM2 G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) @ 32... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Biostar M200-240 240GB m.2 SATA SSD (Win) Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD (Linux) SanDisk Ultra II 480GB SSD (Games) Seagate 2TB SSHD (Storage) 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
LG DVD RW Swiftech H220-X2 Swiftech Komodo RX-ECO Vega Water Block XSPC EX240 Rad 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Gentle Typhoon 120mm x4 Ubuntu 17.10 w/ custom kernel Windows 10 Pro Pixio PX277 27" 1440p 144Hz DP-Adaptive Sync w... 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
JAR-OWL J1 Rainbow LED Mechanical SeaSonic X-Series 1050w Gold+ Corsair 760T Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Firefly Plantronics Rig 500e Gaming Headset Marantz Pro MPH-1 Monitoring Headphones S.M.S.L SD-793II Audio DAC + Headphone Amplifier 
Other
Xbox One Controller 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-4790k @ 4.6GHz Asrock Z97 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 1070 SC Corsair Vengeance 16GB (2x8GB) @ 2133 10-10-10-... 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 530 Series 480GB SSD Seagate 2TB SSHD LG DVD RW Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 40" Vizio HDTV HP Generic EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650w 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide 300R Logitech Generic HyperX Cloud 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 @ 4.3GHz 1.35v Biostar TA970 v5.3 MSI HD 6950 2GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z 16GB (4x4GB) 1600 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Cryorig H5 Ultimate Corsair AF120 (White LED) x3 Corsair AF140 (White LED) x2 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell S2440L Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 EVGA B2 850w Corsair 300R 
Mouse
SteelSeries Rival 300 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 4.0 GHz 1.37v o/s  Biostar X370 GT7 Sapphire Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB HBM2 G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) @ 32... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Biostar M200-240 240GB m.2 SATA SSD (Win) Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD (Linux) SanDisk Ultra II 480GB SSD (Games) Seagate 2TB SSHD (Storage) 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
LG DVD RW Swiftech H220-X2 Swiftech Komodo RX-ECO Vega Water Block XSPC EX240 Rad 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Gentle Typhoon 120mm x4 Ubuntu 17.10 w/ custom kernel Windows 10 Pro Pixio PX277 27" 1440p 144Hz DP-Adaptive Sync w... 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
JAR-OWL J1 Rainbow LED Mechanical SeaSonic X-Series 1050w Gold+ Corsair 760T Zowie FK1 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Firefly Plantronics Rig 500e Gaming Headset Marantz Pro MPH-1 Monitoring Headphones S.M.S.L SD-793II Audio DAC + Headphone Amplifier 
Other
Xbox One Controller 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-4790k @ 4.6GHz Asrock Z97 Extreme6 EVGA GTX 1070 SC Corsair Vengeance 16GB (2x8GB) @ 2133 10-10-10-... 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 530 Series 480GB SSD Seagate 2TB SSHD LG DVD RW Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 40" Vizio HDTV HP Generic EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650w 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide 300R Logitech Generic HyperX Cloud 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 @ 4.3GHz 1.35v Biostar TA970 v5.3 MSI HD 6950 2GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z 16GB (4x4GB) 1600 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
Cryorig H5 Ultimate Corsair AF120 (White LED) x3 Corsair AF140 (White LED) x2 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell S2440L Microsoft Ergonomic 4000 EVGA B2 850w Corsair 300R 
Mouse
SteelSeries Rival 300 
  hide details  
Reply
post #593 of 772
You know, I just wonder what happened to the "who cares about benchmarks real people play games" mentality.

As it is, this benchmark has become nothing more than ammo and fodder. Sad really.
post #594 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post

Yeah, very happy I'm sure.. rolleyes.gif

The 780 competes with the 390X in firestrike, but in actual games where does it stack up? Even with AMD's "atrocious" DX11 performance..


Sorry for the selective quote, but the rest of that just didn't seem like aimed at me. I'm just going to say that you are not remembering it right. Kepler was never very good at Fire Strike. In fact, 290X beat the 780 by a good margin, as evidenced in my post in the other thread:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606224/various-futuremarks-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark-compromised-less-compute-parallelism-than-doom-aots-also/120#post_25360460

Maxwell was a lot better fit for Fire Strike than Kepler, but since it was introduced well after Fire Strike, surely one can't blame Futuremark for being biased based on Maxwell's performance there?
The Air Tunnel
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K (4500MHz@1.28V) P9X79 Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X New Edition Team Group Vulcan 4x4GB 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
2x240GB SSD @RAID 0 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 10 Pro Corsair AX750 
CaseAudio
Rosewill Armor EVO hiFace+AudioGD+DT770Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
The Air Tunnel
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K (4500MHz@1.28V) P9X79 Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X New Edition Team Group Vulcan 4x4GB 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
2x240GB SSD @RAID 0 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 10 Pro Corsair AX750 
CaseAudio
Rosewill Armor EVO hiFace+AudioGD+DT770Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #595 of 772
Quote:
If ExtremeTech is willing to put their reputation on the line and say where the cards perform relative to each other in Time Spy is where they'll be in real games, then i look forward to their article, and the backlash from mislead consumers.

I would never make such a statement. As I've previously stated, I do not rely on any single benchmark to determine "where cards should be." Today, I wrote a round-up of R9 480X vs. GTX 1060 performance. In 23 titles, the RX 480 wins 9 benchmarks and loses 14. It loses and wins those tests by a margin that ranges from "Substantial" to "Nearly tied." No single benchmark, synthetic or otherwise, will ever capture that. I would not expect 3DMark to do so, either, for reasons that have nothing to do with FM's neutrality or lack thereof and everything to do with the complexities intrinsic to any GPU performance comparison.

It's not uncommon to be able to shift relative performance between AMD and Nvidia by 10% just by adjusting some in-game detail levels by reasonable amounts (choosing "High" Shadows, for example, instead of "Very High.") That's before we even talk about GameWorks or any question of developer optimization. I've seen games where relative performance levels could change by as much as 20%. Futuremark wants to write a DX12 standard benchmark that everyone can look to, and I applaud that goal, but I also realize that my readers (and I myself) demand a much higher level of accuracy.
Quote:
his still doesn't matter to me until I see this from somewhere else other than YOU lol

I do not know if AMD plans to address this directly or not. What I will tell you is that it's the job of AMD's PR department to advocate for positions and statements that paint AMD in the best possible light. Good PR departments do not miss opportunities to do this. I cannot speak on the record for AMD. What I can tell you is that neither AMD nor Nvidia has taken any formal position on the topic, nor announced plans to contest Time Spy's results, nor attempted to convince me that I should portray this test as either the Second Coming of Real DX12 benchmarks nor downplay it as a problem. Neither company has said anything on the matter.
Quote:
No one seems to have a problem ? Really dude? Read the posts. ALOT of people have a problem with the benchmark

Let me rephrase: No one involved in the authorship and evaluation of the benchmark at AMD or NV has represented to me that they have a huge love for (or dislike of) this benchmark. And I trust AMD to communicate on these topics because that's the literal job of their PR department.

I understand that people have questions. Wanting to understand how a benchmark works and what it evaluates is important. But there's a difference between having questions and arguing that one or more actors has engaged in profound bad faith.
Quote:
That doesn't mean I'd ever base a purchasing decision off of 3dmark results nor would I advise anybody else to do so. Like any benchmark, Time Spy reports results based on an exact set of criteria which does not necessarily align with those which are part and parcel to games. It doesn't make it 'bad' or 'irrelevant' but it should raise points of critical contention over whether or not it's representative of DX12 implementation out in the wild.

Absolutely, and I agree. These aren't the kinds of comments I've had issue with. Wanting a better understanding of these topics is critical to understanding how benchmarks should be used and what they can evaluate.
Quote:
No need for hyperbole - arguments over a synthetic benchmark do not a war make. Expecting there to be no contention over a synthetic is a bit optimistic, IME.

Contention is expected, certainly. It's been the allegations of bad faith and some of the misunderstandings of what it means for multiple companies who compete with each other to cooperate on benchmark design with a third party that have been frustrating.
post #596 of 772
Like I already said earlier (can't remember if it was this thread or some other thread... there are a few around) - not even Futuremark claims that 3DMark is the "one and only benchmark you ever need". It is a tool in the toolbox that should contain other tools as well.

It happens to be simple to use, fairly quick to run and results are easy to reproduce, so if you want a simple quick "okay, what do we have here, roughly?" check, it does that. It also acts as a nice sanity check vs. results from previously unfamiliar game, and can give you good idea how various architectures compare to each other.

If someone reviewed a graphics card using only 3DMark, I would be the first to object. On the other hand, if someone reviewed a graphics card and only listed a handful of results from a couple of games, without any real explanation how he picked those games and why he didn't test with anything else, I would also wonder why is that. A good review features numerous data points and then tries to make some sense out of those data points.

3DMark Time Spy tries to reflect how DX12 games will probably perform in 1-3 year timeframe.It has an engine written, from the ground up, for DX12. Virtually all DX12 titles available today have DX11 engines with DX12 path bolted on top of it. Yes, it is very interesting to see how those games perform on various cards, but in cases where they disagree with Time Spy, I'd venture a humble suggestion that it may be due to the differences in the engine design, and Time Spy may be more representative of a future DX12-first-engine. Is that important with today's cards, that are probably ready for replacement by the time DX12-first games appear? I don't know, maybe? It is still a data point to add to any comprehensive review.
post #597 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMJarnis View Post

Like I already said earlier (can't remember if it was this thread or some other thread... there are a few around) - not even Futuremark claims that 3DMark is the "one and only benchmark you ever need". It is a tool in the toolbox that should contain other tools as well.

It happens to be simple to use, fairly quick to run and results are easy to reproduce, so if you want a simple quick "okay, what do we have here, roughly?" check, it does that. It also acts as a nice sanity check vs. results from previously unfamiliar game, and can give you good idea how various architectures compare to each other.

If someone reviewed a graphics card using only 3DMark, I would be the first to object. On the other hand, if someone reviewed a graphics card and only listed a handful of results from a couple of games, without any real explanation how he picked those games and why he didn't test with anything else, I would also wonder why is that. A good review features numerous data points and then tries to make some sense out of those data points.

3DMark Time Spy tries to reflect how DX12 games will probably perform in 1-3 year timeframe.It has an engine written, from the ground up, for DX12. Virtually all DX12 titles available today have DX11 engines with DX12 path bolted on top of it. Yes, it is very interesting to see how those games perform on various cards, but in cases where they disagree with Time Spy, I'd venture a humble suggestion that it may be due to the differences in the engine design, and Time Spy may be more representative of a future DX12-first-engine. Is that important with today's cards, that are probably ready for replacement by the time DX12-first games appear? I don't know, maybe? It is still a data point to add to any comprehensive review.

Any chance of seeing a Vulkan renderer option down the line?

Dead Ryzen
(12 items)
 
Penguin Box
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 7 1800X  MSI B350M MORTAR ARCTIC AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB DDR4 3200 (2 x 16G... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingMonitor
SAMSUNG SSD 950 PRO 512GB Crucial MX300 2TB Noctua NH-U12S  BenQ XL2730Z - 27” 2560x1440 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Das Keyboard 4 Professional Soft Tactile (MX Br... Seasonic X-850(SS-850KM3 Active PFC F3) Fractal Design Define Mini C BenQ ZOWIE EC1-A 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2600K @4.6 GHz P8Z68-V AMD Radeon RX 480 (ref. design) Mushkin Enhanced Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) (PC3 17000) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB Noctua NH-U12 S Arch Linux Seasonic SS-520FL 520W 
Case
Corsair Vengeance Series C70 
  hide details  
Reply
Dead Ryzen
(12 items)
 
Penguin Box
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 7 1800X  MSI B350M MORTAR ARCTIC AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB DDR4 3200 (2 x 16G... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingMonitor
SAMSUNG SSD 950 PRO 512GB Crucial MX300 2TB Noctua NH-U12S  BenQ XL2730Z - 27” 2560x1440 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Das Keyboard 4 Professional Soft Tactile (MX Br... Seasonic X-850(SS-850KM3 Active PFC F3) Fractal Design Define Mini C BenQ ZOWIE EC1-A 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2600K @4.6 GHz P8Z68-V AMD Radeon RX 480 (ref. design) Mushkin Enhanced Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) (PC3 17000) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB Noctua NH-U12 S Arch Linux Seasonic SS-520FL 520W 
Case
Corsair Vengeance Series C70 
  hide details  
Reply
post #598 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMJarnis View Post

3DMark Time Spy tries to reflect how DX12 games will probably perform in 1-3 year timeframe.It has an engine written, from the ground up, for DX12. Virtually all DX12 titles available today have DX11 engines with DX12 path bolted on top of it. Yes, it is very interesting to see how those games perform on various cards, but in cases where they disagree with Time Spy, I'd venture a humble suggestion that it may be due to the differences in the engine design, and Time Spy may be more representative of a future DX12-first-engine. Is that important with today's cards, that are probably ready for replacement by the time DX12-first games appear? I don't know, maybe? It is still a data point to add to any comprehensive review.
While this is a fair goal, I'm not sure I agree that it has been met. For what you said to be true in explaining why games work better for AMD now when DX12 is enabled, it would mean that AMD's architecture has been inadvertently made to be optimal around DX11 games with DX12 bolted on, rather than just DX12 forward-thinking as AMD advertised, which doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the async stuff that the games are using now is not similarly implemented in TimeSpy, so for what you're saying to be true, then it is only implemented because it is an easy "bolt on" for the developer wishing to implement DX12 in some form, but that they will stop doing so once they build a game with DX12 from the ground up. If the latter is true, then you'll have to explain why that would be the case for developers.

Edit: What you're saying also contradicts previous statements made by you and the ExtremeTech guy regarding feature level 11 being the focus, which adds to the concerns regarding your assurances. 3DMark can't be programmed for the future and match what existing game developers are doing at the same time if the results don't match. So, I'm missing something, which requires explanation to set me on the right path, or something else is amiss in what I've read from you.
Edited by stargate125645 - 7/19/16 at 2:50pm
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #599 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post

That's nice, now you want to address my post or not? All i got from that was AMD suing nearly every benchmark vendor and winning..

I'm not going "boohoo AMD no win", I'm asking how this benchmark is the definitive DX12 test meant to educate consumers on the best GPU's to buy, when it goes against the purpose of DX12 in the first place..

The path that's being used in this bench is the best case for Nvidia, not for AMD.. You can't be "neutral" in DX12.. It's an oxymoron.

Seeing that the company's spokesperson is front and centre in promoting and defending this benchmark, my guess would be that AMD might have had to agree to a covenant not to sue, and further agree not to publicly disparage Futuremark, in exchange for a compromised benchmark position; such benchmark to be reflective of a negotiated position between AMD and Nvidia, with Futuremark's veto on any objections, and Future Mark retaining the ability to promote this benchmark in any manner that it sees fit. AMD probably had to agree to this compromise based on whatever leverage, or lack thereof, AMD might have had in any such negotiations. (The above is of course based on assumptions)


Notwithstanding, it doesn't change the fact that there are indeed some legitimate concerns, irrespective of the brand of gpu one owns, regarding the validity of this benchmark, and it's utilization in third party reviews as THE proxy for DX 12 implementation, without qualification, based on Futuremark's view of " how games might perform in 1-3 years"
Simplicity
(11 items)
 
Apotheosis
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Z87 Pro TBD Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) DDR3 1600 RAM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Dell U2713HM Alienware TactX gaming Seasonic 850W Gold  
CaseMouse
Cooler Master HAF XB Alienware TactX premium mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
Simplicity
(11 items)
 
Apotheosis
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Z87 Pro TBD Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) DDR3 1600 RAM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Dell U2713HM Alienware TactX gaming Seasonic 850W Gold  
CaseMouse
Cooler Master HAF XB Alienware TactX premium mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
post #600 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by provost View Post

Seeing that the company's spokesperson is front and centre in promoting and defending this benchmark, my guess would be that AMD might have had to agree to a covenant not to sue, and further agree not to publicly disparage Futuremark, in exchange for a compromised benchmark position; such benchmark to be reflective of a negotiated position between AMD and Nvidia, with Futuremark's veto on any objections, and Future Mark retaining the ability to promote this benchmark in any manner that it sees fit. AMD probably had to agree to this compromise based on whatever leverage, or lack thereof, AMD might have had in any such negotiations. (The above is of course based on assumptions)

I am pretty sure Futuremark is not that powerful to even think about leveraging that idea lol.
My home PC
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Threadripper 1950x Gigabyte Aorus X399 Gaming 7  MSI Geforce GTX 1080ti Gaming X G.Skill DDR4 3600 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 840 500GB Samsung 960 Pro 500GB Noctua NH-U14S TR4 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2711 Samsung 55" 4k Corsair K70  EVGA SuperNova G2 1300W 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide Air 540 Logitech G502 Denon AVR-X3300W 
  hide details  
Reply
My home PC
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Threadripper 1950x Gigabyte Aorus X399 Gaming 7  MSI Geforce GTX 1080ti Gaming X G.Skill DDR4 3600 CL16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Evo 840 500GB Samsung 960 Pro 500GB Noctua NH-U14S TR4 Windows 10 Pro 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2711 Samsung 55" 4k Corsair K70  EVGA SuperNova G2 1300W 
CaseMouseAudio
Corsair Carbide Air 540 Logitech G502 Denon AVR-X3300W 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Various] Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark