Overclock.net › Forums › Benchmarks › Benchmarking Software and Discussion › [Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also... - Page 18

post #171 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alastair View Post

The fact is FM claimed time spy as a DX12 benchmark. So what they really mean is "we only kinda support DX12 at a bare minimum level. As we don't actually have proper pipelines for the really headline features such as Asynchronous compute. But we won't tell you that cause we will let you all assume it's fully complaint DX12 bench" This is NOT the right attitude.

Fury X gains 13% in Time Spy vs 10-20% in Ashes, depending on the setting. Pretty good for "bare minimum level" support without "proper pipelines for ... asynchronous compute", considering how Stardock was building a DX12 tech demo and we're talking about a benchmark trying to emulate DX12 games.

Hitman got like a 5-10% boost.

Are they not a true Scotsman DX12 implementation either? I feel sorry for AMD, being conned by these devs who are obviously on Nvidia's payroll.

Seriously though.

Doom gets 40-50% from switching to Vulkan due to a combination of using GPU primitives, better drivers, and async compute. You aren't going to see any AMD miracle gains without two of those things on that list, and I'm not sure that anyone really wants to have a performance race with GPU primitives. It's a good way to standout in benchmarks now, but moves PC games towards console-land.
post #172 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exilon View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alastair View Post

The fact is FM claimed time spy as a DX12 benchmark. So what they really mean is "we only kinda support DX12 at a bare minimum level. As we don't actually have proper pipelines for the really headline features such as Asynchronous compute. But we won't tell you that cause we will let you all assume it's fully complaint DX12 bench" This is NOT the right attitude.

Fury X gains 13% in Time Spy vs 10-20% in Ashes, depending on the setting. Pretty good for "bare minimum level" support without "proper pipelines for ... asynchronous compute", considering how Stardock was building a DX12 tech demo and we're talking about a benchmark trying to emulate DX12 games.

Hitman got like a 5-10% boost.

Are they not a true Scotsman DX12 implementation either? I feel sorry for AMD, being conned by these devs who are obviously on Nvidia's payroll.

Seriously though.

Doom gets 40-50% from switching to Vulkan due to a combination of using GPU primitives, better drivers, and async compute. You aren't going to see any AMD miracle gains without two of those things on that list, and I'm not sure that anyone really wants to have a performance race with GPU primitives. It's a good way to standout in benchmarks now, but moves PC games towards console-land.

No game so far has been fully DX12/Vulkan compliant, they have DX12/Vulkan components but they weren't made from the ground up for DX12/Vulkan. When we have games that don't need patches to include DX12/Vulkan we can say we have DX12 games. Until then they are DX11 games with certain parts of DX12/Vulkan included.

 

DOOM and AOTS so far have been the two best examples of DX12/Vulkan but even DOOM has needed a Vulkan patch. While it may have been built with those aspects in mind it shouldn't have needed a patch to enable them.


Edited by Liranan - 7/20/16 at 10:06am
The girlfriend.
(15 items)
 
The Mistress
(13 items)
 
Media Server
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A8-6410 Lenovo Lancer 4B2 K16.3 R5 128 Shaders/M230 Hynix 8GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 120 GB SSD Seagate Momentus 1TB 5400rmp Linux Mint 18.3 CMN1487 TN LED 14" 1366*768 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Lenovo AccuType 2900mAh/41Wh Elan Trackpad/Logitech M90 Super Flower 
Audio
AMD Avalon(Connexant) 
  hide details  
Reply
The girlfriend.
(15 items)
 
The Mistress
(13 items)
 
Media Server
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A8-6410 Lenovo Lancer 4B2 K16.3 R5 128 Shaders/M230 Hynix 8GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 120 GB SSD Seagate Momentus 1TB 5400rmp Linux Mint 18.3 CMN1487 TN LED 14" 1366*768 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Lenovo AccuType 2900mAh/41Wh Elan Trackpad/Logitech M90 Super Flower 
Audio
AMD Avalon(Connexant) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #173 of 253
All 3dmark devs should have done was include AMD's render path as well.
Nevermind, I still wonder how did they miss Nvidia GameWorks ? biggrin.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #174 of 253
they can always increase tesselation to criple AMD performance biggrin.gif
FX
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4.4Ghz M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AMD Radeon R9 290X Patriot Memory  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitor
Samsung 840 Raijintek Ereboss iiyama X4071UHSU (4K) 
  hide details  
Reply
FX
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4.4Ghz M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AMD Radeon R9 290X Patriot Memory  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitor
Samsung 840 Raijintek Ereboss iiyama X4071UHSU (4K) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #175 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneB1t View Post

they can always increase tesselation to criple AMD performance biggrin.gif

I don't know how much that would effect the RX 480 because of the redesign.
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
Big Timmah
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asrock x370 Killer SLI/AC Sapphire Radeon Nitro Fury CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB 3200mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
PNY 480GB SSD PH-TC12DX Black Windows 10 Pro LG 29inch Ultrawide 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Thermaltake SMART M Series 850W NZXT S340 White Steel ATX Mid Tower Case Wireless Logitech thing 
Mouse Pad
With a supple pad  
  hide details  
Reply
post #176 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaosstar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post


I hope these two posts are sarcasm..

A benchmark needs to be a level playing field. A game does not have the same constraints.
and it isn't a level playing field at the moment.
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Athlon 860K Asus A88X-Pro MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
G-Skill Ares 2133 CL10 8GB (2x4GB) Seagate ST1000VX003 Samsung HD502HI Arctic Cooling Freezer A30 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Home Edition 64bit Razer Lycrosa Seagate M12II 620W Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Athlon 860K Asus A88X-Pro MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
G-Skill Ares 2133 CL10 8GB (2x4GB) Seagate ST1000VX003 Samsung HD502HI Arctic Cooling Freezer A30 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Home Edition 64bit Razer Lycrosa Seagate M12II 620W Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
post #177 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Seems to me that this is all just a failure of DX12 itself to adhere to one standard regardless of vendor. Features like Async should just be part of the API whether or not certain hardware can take advantage of it. It shouldn't be left to vendors or developers to pick and choose which feature set they want to implement, it should all be standard. Now of course I know very little about API's and how they work so maybe this comes off as sounding stupid to the guys that really understand this stuff but it seems to me (an admitted layman) that DX12's implementation is far more fractured and sloppy than DX11's was, which is a shame considering I thought the point of it was to be low level and simple to utilize. It just doesn't make sense to offer all kinds of differing features that may or may not ever be supported and just leave it up to everyone else to pick and choose which ones they will utilize a la carte.

TL;DR - There should just be one unified feature set of DX12 that includes everything and either hardware will be compatible or it won't. It makes much more sense why Nvidia didn't even bother to include certain features on a hardware level now since they knew they could simply muscle everybody to code for them first anyway though...

Low level and simple can't co-exist for distinct architectures. AMD and Nvidia have different circuits for providing same workload (Graphics/gaming).

Both AMD and Nvidia uses different architecture to provide same type of workload i.e graphics/gaming. Techniques to get maximum efficiency from an AMD GPU differ from techniques which is used to get maximum efficiency from a Nvidia GPU and vice versa.
I don't know if it is a good analogy but, lets say our goal/workload/task is to remove screws from something as fast as possible, the most efficient and fastest way to remove screws is use compatible screwdriver(+ or - or * type screwdrivers for + or - or * type screw respectively ) but what if we don't have screwdriver at that particular moment !?, of course we can use a spoon instead or a flat sharp piece of metal or we can shape some piece of metal into a compatible looking screwdriver that should fit into that specific type of screw at a certain degree that finally allows us to unscrew the screw. But I think you and I both agree that a screwdriver would've been the best way to do that work and achieve the goal(remember unscrewing as fast as possible) in terms of handling and processing speed of unscrewing and it doesn't require extra energy/resource that we were using with spoon or piece of metal to turn them into compatible looking screwdriver
.
Both AMD and Nvidia use different architectures (different screws in term of shape/size/design) but their goal is same (here goal is getting the game run as fast as possible). Now is the point to understand Low Level (I think this is the only thing what you are misunderstanding when you said low level and simple). Low level for AMD means using the right methods (compatible screwdrivers) to get the job done(unscrew = gaming as fast as possible in terms of fps and ofcourse smoothness as well), so is for Nvidia. All that means is low level methods that are optimal for AMD GPUs will not work for Nvidia and vice versa. But you can create hack/workaround (remember spoon etc) to do the job. (This is exactly Nvidia is doing with all these AMD Async supported games, but it is slower in terms of energy/resource used per fps, obviously 980 is faster than 280x but you know what I mean )

You can say DX9/10/11 were the weird shaped screwdrivers(very heavy to hold on your hands, kinda out of shape that requires adjusting while you unscrewing or ...or visualize anything troubling that seriously get into your nerve ) , i.e. more coding, more resource consuming, holding you back to do your own creativity, various limitations created by Microsoft. AMD and Nvidia had to create or optimize through drivers whatever piece of architecture they have. But the Microsoft screwdriver is not being liked by some Game developers, these games developers wanted more control on how to render graphics (unscrewing with smooth fluidity or with steady rate, or they wanted to unscrew more screws at a time at that old Microsoft screwdriver is not letting them to do that).

Instead, they designed a new techniques, this is where DX12 comes in, but we have two types of GPU makers, AMD and Nvidia(architecture makers). Since you have already understood that low level thing, that "low level and simple" just can't co exist for different architectures.

AMD implemented type A into DX12 (of course with the help of core level game developers) so that AMD GPUs can be optimally utilized and game developers are also happy as they have designed the API and have full control on it at hardware level as well (GFLOPS of a certain GPU is different talk, of course you understand that, I can not ride my bicycle faster than a motor bike even if I have full control on my bicycle lol),

Nvidia implemented type B into DX12 (of course with the help of core level game developers) so that Nvidia GPUs can be optimally utilized. I am not being biased here at all. Both GPUs are working optimally in their level of DX12.
The only thing that is creating this war between fanboys because many developers think that AMD has somewhat much better type of hardware in terms of getting the controls of something specific and overall in terms of multitasking, multithreading within minimum amount of time or parallelization of different types of loads which are independent of each other (asynchronous), result is more work can be done per unit of resource (resulting more graphics details, more number of everything, etc). Since you have seen that most DX12 games that have released till now were designed with AMD technologies in mind by the developers (this is where we say they used AMD render path).
The thing here is 3DMark did not use AMD's render path. I 100% agree and support them and It is perfectly fine that they used Nvidia's render path as Nvidia is using perfect screwdriver for their screw. Why did they not even provide options to set for compatible GPU and let the users/us compare the scores, despite the leading AAA companies have used AMD's render path. This is I think extremely debatable. And hence some of us are skeptical of 3DMarks honesty on giving unbiased benchmarking tool to PC gamers.

In my opinion, the most hot topic/question of 2016 is who will developers be using render path of between these two companies ?
Nvidia's huge market share that accounts for ~70+% ?
or
AMD GPUs better techniques/architecture of handling load what developers secretly want ?
Edited by sumitlian - 7/20/16 at 12:27pm
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #178 of 253
AMD owns whole console market and code paths used for GCN in consoles is also usable for desktop GCN cards
so its not just about NVIDIA owning 70% of PC market
FX
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4.4Ghz M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AMD Radeon R9 290X Patriot Memory  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitor
Samsung 840 Raijintek Ereboss iiyama X4071UHSU (4K) 
  hide details  
Reply
FX
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4.4Ghz M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AMD Radeon R9 290X Patriot Memory  
Hard DriveCoolingMonitor
Samsung 840 Raijintek Ereboss iiyama X4071UHSU (4K) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #179 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneB1t View Post

AMD owns whole console market and code paths used for GCN in consoles is also usable for desktop GCN cards
so its not just about NVIDIA owning 70% of PC market

Nvidia's much better business strategies with tons of experience in PC markets and with that much cash, I'm afraid AMD might not win in here despite the console advantage....
.....Unless the game developers say 1234 567 to Nvidia and are really interested in revolutionize the PC gaming industry and do not care about the current market share.
Or, Nvidia ignores pride and reaches the same level of architecture very soon and competes with AMD, good for everyone.
Anything can happen. redface.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #180 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneB1t View Post

they can always increase tesselation to criple AMD performance biggrin.gif

Exactly the business here wink.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Overclock.net › Forums › Benchmarks › Benchmarking Software and Discussion › [Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also...