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 65

post #641 of 772

The /r/AMD community is the last place you should get a tl;dr from.
post #642 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

Is not specifically favoring AMD (by making an async heavy code path, for example) the same as favoring Nvidia? They made a code path that adheres to DX12 FL11 as defined by Microsoft (from my understanding). It doesn't take specific advantage of either architecture, which means it doesn't benefit AMD as much as a game/code path specifically designed to take full advantage of AMD capabilities. I don't see that as the same as favoring Nvidia. If heavy use of async was part of FL11 and they didn't use, different story, but choosing not to use an optional feature doesn't scream favoritism to me.

ASync is not like tessellation. The problem here is not going to be solved by using AMD path only like you are suggesting. That would be the same thing. Specific vendor path is the only solution.
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AVEXIR Blitz 1.1 16GB DDR3-2400MHz CL10 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti Hybrid AVEXIR Blitz 1.1 16GB DDR3-2400MHz CL10 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
post #643 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

ASync is not like tessellation. The problem here is not going to be solved by using AMD path only like you are suggesting. That would be the same thing. Specific vendor path is the only solution.

So Futuremark makes a AMD specific path and an Nvidia specific path. Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of calling it a benchmark, since you wouldn't be able to compare the scores? Plus you'd have the inevitable "path X is not doing the same work/visuals/whatever". It's really a no win situation for them.
post #644 of 772
Well if you paid for this DX11 Benchmark then get your money back. It's called false advertising and they are culpable.
post #645 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

So Futuremark makes a AMD specific path and an Nvidia specific path. Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of calling it a benchmark, since you wouldn't be able to compare the scores? Plus you'd have the inevitable "path X is not doing the same work/visuals/whatever". It's really a no win situation for them.

Eventually logic brings people around to this.

DX12 has made synthetic benchmarking irrelevant at best and deceitful at worst. I say stick to a superset of games and engines as the metric for whether one GPU is better than another.

After all, at the end of the day the point is to enjoy your purchase, right? Play on.
Parasite
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 EVGA 1080Ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.SKILL 2133 Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair HG10 Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CMSTORM Quickfire XT Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 
Mouse PadAudio
Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
Parasite
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 EVGA 1080Ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.SKILL 2133 Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair HG10 Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CMSTORM Quickfire XT Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 
Mouse PadAudio
Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
post #646 of 772
Edited . Who cares anymore lol

Annnddd shouldn't we be able to refund this DX12 bench since it doesn't fully utilize Dx12 ? (According to their statement today) but is yet called a DX12 benchmark ? Just a question.
Edited by kfxsti - 7/19/16 at 7:39pm
post #647 of 772
According to their statement today, Time Spy fully uses multi-engine, multi-queue, and multi-threaded submission which are core features of the DX12 API.

What it doesn't do is throw gratuitous amounts of async compute for the sake of making a tech demo (AOTS) or use GCN intrinsic shaders (DOOM). Those are not DX12 requirements.

Whining about how AMD isn't winning therefore it isn't DX12 is hilarious, though. Keep it up.
post #648 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfxsti View Post

Ok. So why then make it an Nvidia path ? With all the time and effort AMD has put into it already? Not to mention the Nvidia driver that was supposed to be delivered that everyone wanted ? Kinda shoddy to me.. no driver for the asyncie and catered to them ? Am I still missing something ? Lol

Why shouldn't Nvidia have to step up as well ? Am I wrong for thinking that just because they chose the wrong path as opposed to AMD setting their cards for DX12 and it's features ( saw earlier where it was said by a special someone that no card out was dx12 ready lolol not calling no names on that one) with GCN that they should be made to look like they do in this bench mark? The TOP tier DX12 benchmarking suite that totally utilizes it more than any game would ?
It's been a fun day watching some of the comments here. Lol

Annnddd shouldn't we be able to refund this DX12 bench since it doesn't fully utilize Dx12 ? (According to their statement today) but is yet called a DX12 benchmark ? Just a question.

They didn't make it an Nvidia path, they made it the lowest common denominator path (which is the Microsoft standard path) and that just happens to not penalize Nvidia by not taking advantage of AMD's architecture strengths. The FL11 path also doesn't penalize AMD in any particular way, it just doesn't take advantage of optional AMD features - which isn't the same thing.

And no, you shouldn't get your money refunded, because DX12 is not solely async compute.

Edit: I'm not positive, but I'm guessing there are DX12 features that Nvidia supports that, if implemented, would make their cards look better against AMD cards - is it unfair to Nvidia that Futuremark didn't include those in their benchmark? Is it making an AMD path if it doesn't use any Nvidia-only features?
Edited by Forceman - 7/19/16 at 7:44pm
post #649 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

Well i was referring to the people that always make the comment about 3dmark(Firestrike) being a benchmark and they don't care about its performance because they don't sit around all day playing it. Those are red team members 90% of the time, which is true so why the outrage over TimeSpy all of a sudden?

Either way the mess is silly.

Personally, I "play" benchmarks far more than I do actual games... redface.gif
post #650 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exilon View Post

According to their statement today, Time Spy fully uses multi-engine, multi-queue, and multi-threaded submission which are core features of the DX12 API.

What it doesn't do is throw gratuitous amounts of async compute for the sake of making a tech demo (AOTS) or use GCN intrinsic shaders (DOOM). Those are not DX12 requirements.

Whining about how AMD isn't winning therefore it isn't DX12 is hilarious, though. Keep it up.

There isn't no whining herbude . I own multiple cards from both camps. Both desktop and mobile gpus. Honestly could care less whom wins. Im just pointing out what everyone else seemed to as well. Lol
"And no, you shouldn't get your money refunded, because DX12 is not solely async compute"
Please go read the statements or check out that link above. It was even said they didn't fully utilize dx12 async aside. So yea. Refunds should be given if wanted.

And guys lol don't think I'm coming off as harsh or a turd . Just going off of stuff that's getting passed round. Enjoy yalls night. My car just got smashed by lightning sooo I'm out for the night.... Damn nature you scary
Edited by kfxsti - 7/19/16 at 8:00pm
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